AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00530 
COUNSEL:   
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  Her  character  of  service  be  changed  to  reflect  a 
medical/disability retirement rather than entry level. 
 
2.  Her  reentry  code  of  3A  (First-term  airman  who  separates 
before completing 36 months (60 months for a 6-year enlistee) on 
current enlistment and who has no known disqualifying factors or 
ineligibility  conditions  except  grade,  skill  level,  and 
insufficient  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  (TAFMS))  be 
changed. 
 
3.  Her narrative reason for separation (Entry Level Performance 
and  Conduct)  and  corresponding  separation  code  of  “JGA”  be 
changed. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
In  June  2011,  she  was  sexually  assaulted  and  stalked  by  two 
airmen - which led to a mental break down.  She was hospitalized, 
treated  and  diagnosed  with  anxiety  disorder  not  otherwise 
specified  and  adjustment  disorder  with  anxious  mood.    She 
experienced problems with concentration, panic attacks, obsessive 
behavior, communication, and insecurities.  When she returned to 
work – she felt that her command was not supportive but hostile 
towards her.  She was assigned a sexual assault advocate and an 
investigator to work her case.  The investigator treated her like 
a villain rather than a victim.  She believes she was tricked by 
the  investigator  to  say  what  he  wanted  her  to  say.    She 
eventually met with her commander and was informed that she was 
being discharged for entry level performance and conduct. 
 
The  actions  of  her  command  were  unconscionable  and  equity 
requires  that  this  injustice  be  rectified.    She  has  been 
diagnosed  with  Post  Traumatic  Stress  Disorder  (PTSD).    Her 
condition  is  so  severe  that  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs 
(DVA) granted her a 100 percent disability.  She should not have 
been punished by the command for her illness.  The command should 
have  instead  sent  her  to  a  medical  evaluation  board  to  be 
medically retired. 
 
 
 

In  support  of  the  applicant’s  appeal,  she  provides  a  personal 
statement,  documents  extracted  from  her  military  personnel 
records, and documentation from the DVA. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  1  February 
2011. 
 
The  applicant  was  notified  by  her  commander  of  his  intent  to 
recommend  that  she  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  under  the 
provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Entry Level Performance 
or  Conduct:    Failure  to  adapt  to  the  military  environment;  and 
Failure  to  make  satisfactory  progress  in  a  required  training 
program.  The specific reasons are at the Notification Memorandum 
(items a through n) which is at Exhibit B. 
 
The legal review for discharge action by the staff judge advocate 
reflects an investigation was conducted regarding two allegations 
by  the  applicant  of  sexual  assault.    As  a  result  of  the 
investigation,  the  applicant’s  allegations  were  found  to  be 
unsubstantiated.  The incidents surrounding the alleged assaults 
were determined to be consensual by all parties involved and on 
20 July 2011, the investigation was closed. 
 
She  was  advised  of  her  rights  in  this  matter  and  elected  to 
submit a statement on her own behalf.  In a legal review of the 
case  file,  the  staff  judge  advocate  found  the  case  legally 
sufficient  and  recommended  discharge.    The  discharge  authority 
concurred  with  the  recommendation  and  directed  an  entry  level 
separation.  The applicant was discharged on 11 August 2011.  She 
served 6 months and 11 days on active duty. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOS  recommends  changing  the  character  of  service  to 
reflect “Uncharacterized”.  DPSOS states there is an error in the 
applicant’s character of service as reflected on her DD Form 214, 
Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty.    The 
applicant’s  type  of  separation  is  considered  “entry  level”; 
however, 
reflect 
“uncharacterized”. 
 
Despite  a  significant  amount  of  effort  spent  training  and 
providing constructive feedback to the applicant, she failed to 
satisfactorily perform her duties.  The applicant had difficulty 

characterization 

should 

her 

service 

 

2 
 

grasping  even  the  most  menial  tasks,  such  as  how  to  properly 
serve food, and she continued to be a negative asset within the 
unit.    As  shown  in  the  applicant’s  training  record  and  her 
written  response,  she  struggled  to  adapt  to  the  military 
environment  at  every  stage  of  her  training  and  she  frequently 
blamed others for her poor performance.  The applicant’s failure 
to  progress  in  training,  her  lack  of  aptitude  for  military 
service,  and  her  failure  to  adapt  to  the  military  way  of  life 
warranted her discharge from the United States Air Force with an 
entry level separation. 
 
The applicant’s DD Form 214 will be administratively corrected to 
reflect her character of service as “uncharacterized”. 
 
The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSOA recommends changing the RE code to reflect 2C.  DPSOA 
states the applicant received an erroneous RE code on her DD Form 
214 of “3A”.  Her correct RE code is 2C (Involuntarily separated 
with  an  honorable  discharge;  or  entry  level  separation  without 
characterization  of  service);  as  required  by  AFI  36-2606, 
Reenlistments  in  the  USAF,  chapter  5,  based  on  her  entry  level 
separation  with  uncharacterized  character  of  service.    The  RE 
code  2C  applies  to  all  entry  level  separations  without 
characterization  of  service  regardless  of  whether  the  discharge 
is voluntary or involuntary.   
 
AFPC/DPSOY  will  provide  the  applicant  a  corrected  copy  of  her 
DD Form 214 with a RE code of 2C unless her request for a medical 
retirement is approved. 
 
The complete DPSOY evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial  of  the 
applicant’s request for a medical retirement.  The AFBCMR Medical 
Consultant  states  although  certain  documents  of  record  indicate 
that the applicant was hospitalized in July 2011 and was issued a 
diagnosis  of  Anxiety  Disorder  and  Adjustment  Disorder,  the 
desired  evidence,  in  the  form  of  actual  admissions  documents, 
progress notes, or a hospital discharge medical summary, has not 
been provided for an independent review for consideration in this 
case. 
 
Nevertheless, while the applicant’s reported sexual traumas, and 
the  significant  clinical  symptoms  she  disclosed  at  her 
Compensation  and  Pension  examination  may  have  been  utilized  to 
establish  service  connection  for  the  post  service  diagnosis  of 
PTSD, the Medical Consultant found this fact alone insufficient 
proof  to  establish  unfitness  due  to  PTSD  at  the  time  of  the 
applicant’s  military  service  or  to  establish  a  direct  causal 
relationship  with  this  diagnosis  and  her  multiple  duty 
deficiencies,  as  would  be  reflected  through  profile  duty 
restrictions, AF Form 422,  Physical  Profile  Serial  Report or AF 
Form 269, Duty-Limiting Conditions Report, prohibiting worldwide 

 

3 

qualification; or service treatment records [none which have been 
supplied for this review] indicating prescribed treatment for a 
diagnosable Axis I mental disorder. 
 
The  Medical  Consultant  is  fully  aware  of  and  sensitive  to  the 
public  outcry  surrounding  sexual  assaults  in  the  military 
services.    However,  the  conflicting  legal  analyses  [applicant’s 
attorney who finds the actions of the commander “unconscionable” 
versus  5  BW/JA,  who  found  the  discharge  legally  sufficient  and 
the  alleged  rapes  unsubstantiated  after  investigation],  demand 
further review, as a minimum, of the applicant’s complete service 
treatment  records.    The  Medical  Consultant  must  conclude  that, 
except  for  the  post  service  evidence  supplied  to  the  DVA 
examiners which resulted in the diagnosis of PTSD, the supplied 
evidence is insufficient to make a retroactive unfit finding, via 
a  de  factor  Medical  Evaluation  Board,  and  a  medical  retirement 
for PTSD. 
 
The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit 
E. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
On 16 and 23 October 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations 
were  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for  review  and  response  within 
30 days  (Exhibit  F).    As  of  this  date,  no  response  has  been 
received by this office.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or  injustice.    The 
applicant's  complete  submission  was  thoroughly  reviewed  and  her 
contentions  were  duly  noted.    However,  we  do  not  find  the 
applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support 
of her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale 
provided  by  the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility 
(OPRs).  We note AFPC/DPSOY will correct the applicant’s RE code 
to  reflect  “2C”  and  character  of  service  to  reflect 
“Uncharacterized”.    We  agree  with  this  correction.    Therefore, 
relief  beyond  that  already  administratively  granted  is  not 
warranted. 
 

 

4 
 

_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The  applicant  be  notified  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or  injustice;  the 
application  was  denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and  the 
application  will  only  be  reconsidered  upon  the  submission  of 
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not  considered  with  this 
application. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00530 in Executive Session on 14 and 23 November 
2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00530 was considered: 
 
   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 January 2012, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 28 March 2012. 
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 12 April 2012. 
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,  
               dated 16 October 2012. 
   Exhibit F.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 16 and 23 October 2012. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

5