RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1996-00146-3

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXXXXX

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Board correct his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, to reflect the following:

a.  Block 18, Remarks, remove the statements, “Member has not completed first full term of service,” and Reissued as directed by AFBCMR Memo, BC-1996-00146-2, 26 Mar 18.”

b.  Block 22a, Official Authorized to Sign, remove a portion of the signature that reflects “214 Corrections Procedures Aug 09 2018.”

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

In a four-page legal brief, the applicant, through counsel, contends the following:

He does not believe it is proper to reference the Board’s action on his DD Form 214.  His corrected DD Form 214 should read as though he was discharged as a matter of course, and not as a result of an AFBCMR action.  

His corrected DD Form 214 needlessly references his BCMR application and signals to the reader that his service was something less than normal and complete.  That defeats the purpose of his application and the Boards favorable decision, which is to erase the error and injustice insofar as is possible.  Where it not for the error and injustice the Board purported to correct, he would have completed his term of service.  Moreover, his original DD Form 214 did not state, “Member has not completed first term of service.”

His corrected DD Form 214 violates his privacy rights under federal statute and Department of Defense and Air Force regulations.  Specifically, the Air Force’s language in block 18, Remarks, states, “Reissued as directed by AFBCMR Memo, BC-1996-00146-2, 26 Mar 18.”  The reader simply needs to look up the cited docket number to see why he applied to the Board to begin with.  

The DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552 used for correction board applications makes clear that applications and related materials are subject to the protections of the Privacy Act.  Decisions of the Board are redacted of all personal identifying information.  However, the language used in block 18 of his corrected DD Form 214 readily permits the reader to identify him as the applicant in BC-1996-00146-2, which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force airman first class (E-3).

On 20 Feb 97, the Board considered and denied his request to change his reentry code to allow him to reenlist, finding that the applicant had provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief.

On 2 Nov 15, the applicant though his counsel, submitted a request for reconsideration.  Counsel implores the Board to correct the applicant’s record to change his separation code and corresponding narrative reason for separation and to remove the Report of Mental Health Evaluation that erroneously indicates he has a personality disorder.  On Feb 18, the Board considered and partially granted the applicant’s request to change his separation code and corresponding narrative reason for separation.  With respect to the applicant’s request to remove the Report of Mental Health Evaluation, the Board finds the applicant had provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief.

On 9 Nov 18, AFPC/DP2STM, notified the applicant that in response to his DD Form 149, dated 2 Nov 15, inquiry his DD Form 214 was being reaccomplished.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2STM, recommends denying the application, indicating the DD Form 214 was prepared correctly in accordance with the guidance.  AFI 36-3202, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, (Remarks) states “When the AFBCMR or AFDRB directs changes that require a reissued DD Form 214, enter the remarks shown:  “Reissued as directed by AFBCMR Memo, (subject); or Reissued as directed by AFDRB.”  Furthermore, Table 4, rule 41 states: “Determine initial term of service by the initial enlistment contract for airman and indicate “member (has) (has not) completed first full term of service.”  

Finally, item 22a contains the signature block and duty title of the technician that created the DD Form 214 and was the duty title of the technician at the time the document was prepared.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 28 Aug 19 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 12 Sep 19. In his response, the applicant, through counsel, contended the reissued DD Form 214 is in violation of his rights under the Privacy Act in that the DD Form 214s reference to his BCMR Docket Number permits individuals who consider his discharge certificate to identify the issue that led to his BCMR applications.  In addition, the Air Force is violating the Privacy Act by including the BCMR Docket Number on the corrected 214, for the same reason.  

The applicant contended the AFI the OPR is relying on is no longer valid.  Specifically, AFI 36-3202, dated 22 Nov 05, was replaced on 4 Dec 18 and the cited authority, Table 4, Rule 38, has been removed.  Therefore, the Board should apply the latest version to the applicant’s application

The applicant contended there are two fundamental legal issues in the applicant’s request.  First, the corrected DD Form 214 puts the applicant in a worse position because it allows the reader to access BCMR decisions and thus learn why and how he was separated (due to erroneous psychiatric diagnosis).  In addition, it permits the reader to learn other factual matters that are not normally made available through a DD Form 214.  The Board can only exercise its discretion for the benefit of the individual member.  By including the BCMR Docket Number on the applicant’s DD Form 214, the Air Force has made corrections that are not favorable to him and his DD Form 214 in fact could prejudice him.

Second, the Privacy Act as noted on the DD Form 214 protects applications to the Board.  The applicant may desire or need to supply others a copy of his DD Form 214 for a variety of reasons.  In doing so, he now entails the risk of the recipient of the DD Form 214 gaining access to information that otherwise is protected by the Privacy Act, including psychiatric records.  

Lastly, the revised version of AFI 36-3202 does not authorize the Air Force to reference BCMR actions on reissued DD Form 214s and to his knowledge there is no other AFI authorizing such action.  Therefore, the BCMR has ample legal basis for directing the Air Force to remove the offending language.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board found no evidence that the applicant’s DD Form 214 was improperly prepared.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2STM and finds
a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board took note of the applicant’s contention that the reissued DD Form 214 violates his rights under the Privacy Act by including the BCMR Docket Number on the corrected 214; however, there is no evidence to substantiate this to be the case.  In this respect, we note DoDI 1336.1, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214/5 Series), dated 6 Jan 89, (in effect during the period in question) and all subsequent revisions states, “When a DD Form 214 is administratively issued or reissued, an entry will be made in Block 18, Remarks annotating the issuance or reissuance unless appellate authority, E.O., or Military Department, or Secretarial directive specifies otherwise.  With respect to the applicant’s request that a portion of the signature block be removed, as pointed out by AFPC/DP2STM, Block 22a, Official Authorized to Sign, contains the signature block and duty title of the technician who created the DD Form 214.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.  

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-1996-00146-3 in Executive Session on 30 Mar 20:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 16 Apr 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 14 Aug 19.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 28 Aug 19.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s Response, w/atch, dated 12 Sep 19.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.