RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02353 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her Reentry (RE) code of “2C” (Approved Honorable Involuntary 
Separation or Entry Level Separation) be changed to an RE code 
“1”. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She believes the record is unjust because she was being seen for 
insomnia by a mental health doctor at Kadena Air Base (AB), 
Japan at the time of her discharge. Her commander denied her 
request to be transferred to the Air Force Reserves until the 
insomnia was cured. She then requested through the medical 
doctor, to be discharged until the insomnia was corrected. She 
was told she would be discharged with a reentry code of 2C-
unable to adapt, and that once her insomnia was corrected she 
would be able to go back to active duty. 

 

After being discharged she stayed close to the military by 
working as a government contractor in Kuwait and Iraq doing the 
same job she did while on active duty. She has letters of 
recommendation to prove that she could do the job she was given 
even with insomnia. 

 

She discovered the unjust reentry code recently when she talked 
with an Air Force recruiter about how to return to active duty. 
She never wanted to leave the military in the first place, as 
evidenced by her request to transfer to the Reserves. She 
requests a reenlistment code change from 2C to any of the 
reenlistment codes in the “1” category so she may reenlist, 
finish her initial term and hopefully continue a long career in 
the military. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and letters of recommendation. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 
24 November 2008. She was progressively promoted to the grade 
of airman first class, E-3, with date of rank of 23 January 2009 

 

On 2 March 2010, her commander notified her that he was 
recommending her for discharge under the provisions of Air Force 
Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-32, Military Retirements and 
Separations and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208 Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.11.9.3. The 
specific reason for this action was: on 9 February 2010, after 
a thorough evaluation, the staff psychiatrist of the mental 
health clinic diagnosed her with Adjustment Disorder with 
Anxiety and Depressed Mood. The staff psychiatrist noted that 
her condition was not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, 
transfer, disciplinary action, retraining or reclassification 
within the military system, and that it was unlikely that any 
effort to rehabilitate her into a satisfactory member of the 
military would be successful. Her disorder was of a severity 
that significantly impaired her ability to function effectively 
in a military environment. Furthermore, the staff psychiatrist 
stated the applicant was not considered worldwide qualified and 
should not be placed on mobility or deployment status. The 
staff psychiatrist recommended she be separated from the United 
States Air Force. 

 

On 2 March 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
commander’s intent to discharge her and opted to consult counsel 
but waived her right to submit statements on her behalf. 

 

Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the 
discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed 
that the applicant be discharged with an honorable character of 
service. 

 

The applicant was released from active duty effective 
24 March 2010, with an honorable characterization of service, a 
separation code of “JFY” and a narrative reason for separation 
of “adjustment disorder.” She was credited with serving 1 year, 
4 months, and 1 day of active duty. 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE 
Code 2C is required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, 
chapter 3, based on her involuntary discharge with honorable 
character of service. The applicant does not provide any proof 
of an error or injustice in reference to her RE code, but states 
her letters of recommendation prove she can do the job she is 
given even with the insomnia. However, per her commander’s 
memorandum dated 2 March 2010, her medical condition adversely 


affected her duty performance, ability to carry out daily tasks, 
and her progress in training. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant was 
thoroughly evaluated and was diagnosed with adjustment disorder 
with anxiety and depressed mood (DSM 309.28). This condition 
caused the applicant to be administratively unsuitable for duty. 
Additionally she was unable to carry a weapon or perform any 
critical duties and was not considered worldwide qualified 
therefore, she could not be placed in a mobility or deployment 
status. Her condition caused the unit to have to backfill Air 
Expeditionary Force (AEF) taskings which further impacted the 
unit’s deployment responsibilities. 

 

Although they are pleased that the applicant is apparently 
succeeding and coping well in her civilian capacity, it does not 
change the basis for which she was discharged from the Air 
Force. The military environment is unique and stressors 
encountered in such an environment may not appear or surface 
when the individual is removed from the military environment. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

In her response, dated 19 September 2012, the applicant 
indicates that during the time she was seen by the mental health 
doctor at Kadena AB, Japan from November 2009 through 
March 2010; at no point was there either talk or was she 
informed of any type of a disorder. While she was on four 
different sleep medications she still performed her job as a 
security forces member. If there was any type of problem or if 
her Flight Sergeant was concerned about an adjustment disorder 
she would not have been allowed to be armed on any given day in 
accordance with AFMAN 31-201, Volume 3, Security, Flight 
Operations, chapter 1, section 1.9, Fitness for Duty. 

 

She reiterates her previous contention that she was told she 
would be discharged with a reentry code of 2C, unable to adapt, 
and once her insomnia was corrected she would be able to return 
to active duty. She further contends; had she known she would 
not be able to return to active duty she would have fought to 
stay on active duty. 

 

She has given all the evidence she has to prove she does not 
have an adjustment disorder and requests she be granted a 
reenlistment code so that she may reenlist with the military and 
complete the contract she started. 

 


The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant’s complete submission, to include her comments 
provided in her rebuttal to the Air Force evaluations and do not 
find that it supports a determination that the applicant was 
improperly separated from active duty in 2010. The RE code 
which was issued at the time of her separation accurately 
reflects the circumstances of her separation and we do not find 
it to be in error or unjust. Therefore, we agree with the 
opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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 this application 
BC-2012-02353 in Executive Session on 6 December 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 


 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 16 May 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 22 August 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 July 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 August 2012. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 September 2012, 
w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair