RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03049 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be 
changed as follows: 

 

 1) The reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2P (Separated 
under AFM 39-10 as a marginal performer or to preserve good order 
and discipline) be changed to 2B (Separated with other than an 
honorable discharge), or a code deemed appropriate by the AFBCMR. 

 

 2) The authority and reason for his discharge be changed to 
match his RE code. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was never absent without leave (AWOL) or a deserter dropped 
from the rolls as his RE code states. He was assigned to the 
training section and was under constant review; therefore, it 
would have been impossible for him to have gone AWOL. 

 

He requested separation from the Air Force and received an 
honorable discharge. 

 

He recently learned what the military codes on his DD Form 
214 stood for when he looked on-line. 

 

The authority and reason given was “AWOL-Deserter Dropped from 
Rolls,” a condition he could not have achieved during his three 
weeks at Basic Military Training (BMT). 

 

These errors are preventing him from receiving services from the 
Department of Veteran Affairs. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 6 Jul 76, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air 
Force. 

 


On 20 Jul 76, he was notified by his squadron commander that he 
was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for being a 
marginal performer, which was substantiated by his Basic Training 
Record. 

 

The Basic Training Record reflects the applicant (1) On 14 Jul 
76, failed a Red Inspection (security drawer & clothing drawer) 
and the reevaluation for the inspection; (2) On 15 Jul 76, while 
being counseled, he displayed signs of hostility and dislike for 
authority and the idea of being corrected; and (3) his behavior 
was described as immature, lacking in self-discipline, and 
contemptuous. He was referred to the Mental Hygiene Clinic to 
evaluate his mental state. The Mental Hygiene personnel 
described him as possessing poor judgment and recommended 
processing for a limited potential discharge. During subsequent 
counseling, he displayed no motivation for completing basic 
training. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge and, waived his right to consult with legal counsel and 
submit a statement in his own behalf. The base legal office 
found the case legally sufficient to support the separation. 

 

On 23 Jul 76, the applicant received an honorable discharge and 
was issued a RE code of 2P and a Special Program Designator (SPD) 
code of “JET” which denotes “Involuntary discharge: marginal or 
nonproductive performer while assigned to recruit or initial 
skills training.” He served on active duty for a period of 
18 days. 

 

In Dec 76, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) 
considered a similar application. In his application, he 
requested that his reason for discharge and his RE code be 
changed. The DRB concluded that the discharge and RE code should 
not be changed. His case was subsequently considered by the 
AFBCMR, and was also denied (See Exhibit B). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change 
his authority and reason for discharge. DPSOS states that the 
applicant did not provide any evidence or identify any errors or 
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on 
the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge to include his authority and reason for separation was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. 

 

The applicant apparently believes there is information within his 
discharge record that reflects he was discharged from the Air 
Force for being AWOL. DPSOS confirmed that the separation code 


of “JET” correctly reflects his reason for discharge, i.e., 
“Marginal Performer.” His abilities, personality and aptitude 
made him a marginal performer. Further, attempts to rehabilitate 
him were met with negative results. In addition, a mental 
evaluation stated that there was no evidence of mental illness. 
The evaluation also stated that in the opinion of the evaluators, 
he demonstrated an inability to perform at the standards set for 
him, showed poor judgment, and repeatedly failed to pass 
inspections. His defective attitude, mannerisms towards his 
instructors and negative attitude caused hostile reactions from 
other airmen in his flight. His training record indicated a lack 
of self-discipline and self-confidence towards training. His 
discharge as a marginal performer was warranted. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request for an RE 
code change. The applicant’s RE code “2P” is the correct code 
for his involuntary honorable discharge for being a marginal 
performer. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 26 Mar 13, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, 
a response has not been received (Exhibit E). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, 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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


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 Docket Number 
BC-2012-03049 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 27 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 28 Sep 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 26 Mar 13. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair