RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01244 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2Q (Personnel 
Medically Retired or Discharged) be changed to a code that will 
allow him to reenlist in the Air Force Reserve. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The RE code 2Q is unjust as the military never really figured 
out why his ankle was bothering him at the time of his service 
and it no longer bothers him at all. He has been working in the 
same career since four months after being discharged. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 31 Aug 00 for a period of six years 
and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman 
(E-4), effective and with a date of rank of 20 Feb 03. 

 

On 19 Dec 03, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) found the 
applicant unfit for continued military service for left ankle 
tarsal tunnel syndrome and referred him to the Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB). The IPEB subsequently recommended the 
applicant’s disability discharge with severance pay and a 
disability rating of 10 percent. 

 

On 15 Jan 04, the applicant accepted the findings of the IPEB, 
waiving his right to a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB), 
and the Secretary of the Air Force directed his disability 
discharge with severance pay. On 26 Mar 04, he was honorably 
discharged for physical disability and assigned an RE code of 
2Q. He was credited with 3 years, 6 months, and 26 days of 
total active service. 

 

 


The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial, indicating the preponderance of the 
evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the 
disability process or at the time of separation. The correct 
RE code for a person who is approved for a medical retirement or 
separation is 2Q. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating the 2Q RE code was 
appropriately assigned to reflect the applicant’s disability 
discharge in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the 
United States Air Force. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant provides a letter from his attending physician 
indicating that he has had no issues with his ankles or feet 
since Feb 10 (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 an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, including his 
response to the Air Force evaluations, 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. No evidence has been presented which would 
lead us to believe the RE code of 2Q was not appropriately 
assigned or did not accurately reflect the circumstances of his 
medical discharge. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application. 


4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01244 in Executive Session on 14 Oct 10, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 10. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 26 May 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 14 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant’s Physician, dated 26 Aug 10. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair