RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00520 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of “2C” which denotes "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service” be changed to a “3” series RE code to allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After completion of basic training and security forces technical school, he was discharged based on his response to one of the items listed on his Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) questionnaire. There is no medical history or basis for concluding that the incident cited was more than an isolated juvenile stunt. His work history and performance in the Air Force are indicative of his maturity and stability. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies his medical records, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; DD Form 2808, Report of Medical Examination; and PRP Questionnaire. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 June 2008, the applicant completed a PRP questionnaire citing he had hurt himself on purpose. On 16 December 2008, the applicant completed DD Form 2807-1, Report of Medical History, and failed to disclose a self-mutilation condition. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 May 2009 and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class. On 8 December 2009, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Erroneous Entry. The specific reason for this action was his failure to disclose he deliberately cut himself. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and submitted a statement in his own behalf. On 16 December 2009, the judge advocate’s office reviewed the case, determined it was legally sufficient, and recommended an honorable discharge. The discharge authority approved the separation and ordered an honorable discharge. On 18 December 2009, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36- 3208, for Erroneous Entry and received an RE code of “2C,” with service characterized as honorable. He served 7 months and 14 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant disclosed on the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) Questionnaire that he deliberately cut himself in the summer of 2008. Because the applicant failed to disclose this information on his Report of Medical History, he was cleared by the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). DPSOS states an enlistment is only erroneous if at the time of enlistment, the Air Force was unaware of the conditions that would preclude his enlistment. DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant’s contentions and justification are in reference to his discharge and do not have anything to do with how his RE code was determined. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he answered the PRP questionnaire honestly and would have answered in the same way had the previous form asked for this information. The MEPS inquired about the scars on his shoulders and he informed them that he cut himself. Had the MEPS determined these scars rose to the level of mutilation or were indicative of any psychological concern, then entries to that effect would be made on the DD Form 2808. Instead, the MEPS determined that a designation of “normal” was appropriate. The Air Force knew of these scars on that date but dismissed them as not noteworthy. This facts could have been uncovered had a proper review been conducted. He does not feel the Air Force has given him due consideration on its obligation to fully investigate and evaluate their decision to discharge him. Section II of the PRP questionnaire clearly calls for an explanation of any no items. No explanation from item 5 was provided and because potentially disqualifying information (PDI) was being alleged, a medical review should have been conducted. He is submitting that his actions subsequent to discharge continue to support his contention that he had the capacity to be a successful and productive airman. He has secured employment with the Idaho Correctional Center. Securing this position entailed both physical and psychological evaluations and has led to a law enforcement certification. This, however, is not his chosen field and he will continue to pursue a career path in the Air Force. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ 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 to warrant changing his RE code. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however; we found no indication the actions taken to effect his discharge or RE Code were contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or the actions taken against him were based on factors other than his failure to disclose that he deliberately cut himself. While the applicant argues the Air Force was aware of his scars and failed to conduct a proper review of the circumstances surrounding his discharge, the fact of the matter is, self-mutilation is disqualifying per the governing instructions. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof he has suffered either an error or an injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2010- 00520 in Executive Session on 8 December 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 9 Sep 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 1 Nov 10 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 10. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Nov 10, w/atchs