RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02752
INDEX CODE:  112.10
							COUNSEL: NONE

							HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 2B (involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge) be changed to enable him to enlist in the Marine Corps.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE Code in the personnel system and on his DD Form 214 is wrong.  The RE Code 2B means retired and the computer system reflects an RE Code of 4.  He has requested the RE Code be fixed on several occasions and has run into problems.  He needs the RE Code fixed and a corrected copy of his DD Form 214 sent to him immediately so he can show it to a recruiter for reenlistment.

The applicant provided no evidence in support of his appeal.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 March 1996, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 17 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  The applicant was guaranteed training in the career field Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 3P031, Security Apprentice.

The applicant was referred to the mental health clinic for an evaluation after the applicant told his supervisor that he could no longer take being in the military and his supervisor feared the applicant would harm himself.  The applicant was seen as a walk-in patient for a mental health evaluation on 22 August 1996.  He presented himself as being very depressed over being in the military and that joining the military was a “big mistake.”  Following the evaluation, the applicant was admitted to a VA hospital with expressed suicidal ideation and potential thought disorder.  In a social work assessment prepared as a result of the applicant’s hospitalization, it was indicated that he had made false statements about being suicidal and that he would say anything to get out of the military.  The applicant said he did not want to be in the military and that he did not want to wear the uniform.  He stated that if he had to remain in the military, he would consider going AWOL to Canada.  The applicant was released back to his base on 26 August 1996 and was seen at the mental health clinic again on 27 August 1996.  In a report dated 10 September 1996, the Chief of the Mental Health Clinic stated that the applicant did not have a psychiatric disorder and that his suicidal claims were for personal gain to leave the military.  This physician stated the applicant was able to conform his behavior to military standards and that he should be held administratively accountable for his actions.  The Axis I diagnosis was “Malingering” and an Axis II diagnosis was deferred.

The applicant received a letter of reprimand (LOR) on 8 October 1996 for malingering and another LOR on 11 October 1996 for wrongful use of a controlled substance.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of both LORs on the date issued but only responded to the LOR concerning malingering.  He stated he really did have suicidal tendencies and had told the VA psychiatrist during his evaluation that he didn’t, only to get out of the psychiatric ward at the hospital.  

On 11 October 1996, his commander notified the applicant of his intention to establish an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) on the applicant.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of this notification on the same day.  On 16 October 1996, his commander imposed 14 days of additional duty for the applicant, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) punishment, for reporting late to duty on 26 & 27 September 1996.  The applicant acknowledged receipt, consulted legal counsel, waived his right to demand trial by court-martial and accepted the nonjudicial proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ.

On 23 October 1996, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend him for discharge based on minor disciplinary infractions.  The applicant acknowledged receipt, waived his right to consult legal counsel, and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf for retention in the Air Force.  On 24 October 1996, the commander signed a recommendation to the discharge authority for the applicant’s general discharge based on minor disciplinary infractions.  The commander did not recommend probation and rehabilitation because it was his opinion that such action would be inconsistent with the maintenance of good order and discipline in the unit and not in the best interests of the United States Air Force.  On 25 October 1996, the discharge was found to be legally sufficient by the staff judge advocate.  On 29 October 1996, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208.  

The applicant was discharged effective 31 October 1996 with a character of service of general (under honorable conditions), a separation code of JKN (misconduct) and a reentry code of 2B (involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge).  He had served 7 months and 11 days on active duty.

The applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 15 May 2002 to have his reentry code changed.  The AFDRB addressed the applicant’s request on 4 October 2002 and concluded the applicant’s misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members, that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct, and that the RE code was appropriate.  The AFDRB maintained that both the Marine Corps and the Army could waive the Air Force RE Code of 2B.  The Board checked with the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) and discovered the applicant’s RE code was listed as a 4.  The DMDC corrected the system to reflect the proper code of 2B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS stated that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the Discharge Authority.  The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the member’s request to change his Re Code on 4 October 2002.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE conducted a review of the applicant’s case file and recommends denial.  DPPAE states the RE code of 2B is correct.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his review of the Air Force evaluations, the applicant chose not to address the statements made in the evaluations; however, he adds that he does not have emotional problems now nor did he suffer from emotional problems during his military service.  He was homesick and didn’t know how to handle the situation, which led him to display some foolish and immature actions.  He claims the marijuana accusation has been blown out of proportion.  He has never used marijuana.  He made the statement thinking it might contribute to his discharge.  He now feels embarrassed about making the false statements.  He is an older, more mature and motivated person today and wishes to be a soldier now.

The applicant’s review 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 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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The RE code which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or unjust.  In view of the foregoing, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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 in Executive Session on 5 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

Panel Chair
Member
Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number 01‑02752 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Oct 02.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Nov 02.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Dec 02.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 03.
	Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 2 Dec 02.