RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03314 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Separation Authority of AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for 
Retention, Retirement and Separation be changed. 


 

2. His reentry (RE) code of 2Q (Personnel Medically Retired or 
Discharged) be changed. 


 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He received a service-connected disability from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) on 14 April 2010. The VA stated he was in 
sound condition when he enlisted in the military. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy his DD Form 
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and his DVA 
rating. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 5 January 2010, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 11 March 2010, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found 
the applicant unfit for continued military service for Temporal Lobe 
Epilepsy, resulting in his discharge under other than Chapter 61, 10 
USC. The IPEB stated the applicant’s medical condition existed prior 
to service (EPTS) and had not been permanently aggravated through 
military service. 

 

On 18 March 2010, the applicant accepted the findings of the IPEB and 
waived his right to a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB). 

 

On 22 March 2010, the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) directed the 
applicant be discharged from active service for physical disability 
due to a condition that existed prior to service (EPTS). The SecAF 
stated the applicant was not entitled to any benefits under the 
provisions of Chapter 61, Title 10, U.S.C. 

 


On 25 March 2010, he was honorably discharged for physical disability 
and assigned an RE code of 2Q. He was credited with 2 months and 21 
days of total active service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application is 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the preponderance of the 
evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the 
disability process or at the time of separation. The request to 
amend or change his DD Form 214 is in violation of Air Force 
Instructions and is not authorized. 

 

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 5 November 2010, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to applicant for review and response. As of this date, no response 
has been received by this office (Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 in judging the merits of the case; 
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air 
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 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-2010-03314 in Executive Session on 24 February 2011, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 28 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 10.