RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05034
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reentry (RE) code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without 
characterization of service) be changed to a code that would allow him to reenlist.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes his RE code to be unjust because he was medically discharged after being in Basic Military Training (BMT) for 
little over a week.  It was stated he had anxiety - he believes it was nerves and not anxiety.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a personal statement and two character references.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 July 2012.

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208 (Adjustment Disorder).  The specific reason was the applicant was diagnosed as having a 
mental disorder.  It was determined this condition interfered with duty performance and conduct and was severe enough that his 
ability to function in the military was significantly impaired.  The specific diagnosis was Axis I – Adjustment Disorder with 
Anxiety.

He was advised of his rights in this matter and waived his right 
to consult with counsel and waived his right to submit a 
statement on his 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 
with an RE code of 2C.  The applicant was discharged on 20 July 
2012 and was credited with 19 days served on active duty.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends denial.  SGPS states after two weeks in BMT 
he was seen by Mental Health and given a diagnosis that is not 
compatible with military service.  Based on the documentation on 
file in the applicant’s records, the separation was done in 
accordance with established policy and administrative 
procedures.

The SGPS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states the RE code “2C” is 
required based on the entry level separation with 
uncharacterized character of service and the applicant does not 
provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to 
his RE code.

The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 May 2014, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days (Exhibit E).  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.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, 
the RE code assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions.  In addition, the applicant has not 
provided any evidence which would lead us to believe that a change in his record to allow him to reenlist is warranted.  In 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  
Therefore, we agree with 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.  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 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-2013-05034 in Executive Session on 3 June 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 October 2013, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  DD Form 214 and Discharge Package.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 13 November 2013.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 December 2013.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 2014.
2 3 4