RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-01889

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXXX
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

1.  Change his reenlistment (RE) code from 2C  to 1.  

2.  In the alternative, change his RE code to one allowing him reentry into the armed forces.  

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

In an 18-page legal brief, the applicant, through counsel, contends the following:

1.  It would be a grave injustice to prevent the applicant from serving his country by relying on one episode, four and a half years ago when he realized he had chosen the wrong career field and abruptly, without thinking through his decision, and without guidance from his leadership, decided it would be best if he separated from the military.  

2.  His administrative discharge was legally insufficient, not complying with DoDI 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations, Enclosure 3, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, requirements to explain the adverse effects his adjustment disorder had on his duty performance.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

According to documentation submitted by the counsel:

The applicant is a former airman fist class (E-3).

On 15 Dec 15, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.

On 19 Feb 16, the Behavioral Analysis Service issued a memorandum identifying the applicant was recently evaluated and diagnosed with a mental health disorder, further stating the applicant’s  diagnosis does not meet retention standards for continued military service.  

On 8 Mar 16, the applicant was notified his commander, under the authority of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, that he was recommending his discharge for Conditions that Interfere with Military Service, specifically, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. 

On 9 Mar 16, a legal review of the proposed discharge action determined the basis, service characterization, and probation/rehabilitation recommendations were supported by the evidence; recommending the applicant be administratively discharged with an Entry-Level Separation (ELS), without probation and rehabilitation.    

On 11 Mar 16, the discharge authority, after reviewing the discharge case file on the applicant, directed he be discharged, with an ELS, without probation and rehabilitation.   

On 15 Mar 16, per DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, the applicant was discharged with an ELS, uncharacterized character of service, separation code and corresponding narrative reason for separation of JFY (Adjustment Disorder) and an RE code of 2C.  He was credited with 3 months and 1 day of active service.  

On 13 Dec 18, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) voted unanimously to approve the applicant’s request to change his narrative reason for separation from “Adjustment Disorder” to “Secretarial Authority.”  The Board voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to change the reenlistment eligibility code.  The Board considered the case based on the liberal consideration standards required by guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and/or Title 10 United States Code, Section 1553, determining the narrative reason was more accurately described as “Secretarial Authority.”  They found insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety warranting a change to the applicant’s RE code.  

On 15 Feb 19, the applicant was issued a new DD Form 214, with a separation code and corresponding narrative reason for separation of KFF (Secretarial Authority). 

On 18 Dec 19, the AFDRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s appeal for a change to his RE code.  Under DoDI 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services, under Learning, Psychiatric, and Behavioral Condition, the applicant’s reported history of mental health conditions or disorders prior to and during service are considered disqualifying conditions for induction into military service.  Liberal consideration was not applied to his petition due to his reason for the ELS discharge being exempt for consideration under this policy.  

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the application.  On 15 Mar 16, the applicant received an ELS, with an uncharacterized character of service after serving 3 months and 1 day of service.  His RE code 2C, is based on his ELS with an uncharacterized character of service.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice in reference to the applicant receiving an RE code 2C.  

The applicant is specifically asking for a “1” series RE code.  However, the only RE code an Airman can separate within the “1” series is 1J.  RE code 1J would not be appropriate as the applicant was not selected or qualified for reenlistment, he was involuntarily discharged.  

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 6 Aug 20 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 17 Aug 20.  In his response, via counsel, the applicant contends the advisory opinion failed to address the contention the discharge action was replete with legal errors and was unjust.  It simply stated the RE code received based on the type of discharge was appropriate at the time and should not be changed.  In support he submits an excerpt of AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  He reiterates his request to change his RE code to the “1” series to allow reenlistment in the armed forces.  In the alternative, he requests to change  his RE code to a “3” series code that will allow a branch of the armed forces to make its independent decision to waive his RE code and allow him to serve his country.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

AIR FORCE ADDITIONAL EVALUATION

AFPC/JA, recommends denying the application, concurring with AFPC/DP2SSM’s recommendation to deny the request for a reenlistment code change.  The available military records do not clearly indicate the underlying discharge of the applicant involved errors of law or procedure.  Additionally, the purported errors raised by his counsel did not prejudice the applicant to warrant a change in the discharge decision or RE code.  

One purported error raised by the applicant’s counsel is the applicant’s discharge documents did not explain the adverse effects his adjustment disorder had on his duty performance, not in accordance with DoDI 1332.14 and AFI 36-3208.  However, the discharge notification memorandum issued by the applicant’s commander did indicate the discharge was a result of his absence from training, with attachments further documenting how his condition affected duty performance.  The seriousness of the condition influenced the commander’s decision to remove the applicant from training.  As the applicant had concurred with the mental health evaluation, it is therefore not unreasonable to find the discharge notification language satisfied Department of Defense and Air Force Instruction explanation requirements.  

Another purported error raised by the applicant’s counsel involves a lack of rehabilitation and counseling before discharge as required by DoDI 1332.14 and AFI 36-3208.  Documentation revealed the applicant did receive medical counseling and advice on rehabilitation.  The 19 Feb 16 Mental Health evaluation does indicate the applicant was educated on stress management techniques.  Additionally, they opine the applicant’s removal from training also served as a treatment of sorts as it removed him from the source of the stress.  While counsel’s medical expert disagrees with the mental health treatment the applicant received before discharge labeling the Air Force’s attempt to resolve his mental health crisis in this nature as “discriminatory,” “prejudicial,” “negligent,” or a “leadership failure;” they opine is inaccurate, considering the Air Force’s competing interest of reducing the risk of self-harm among the Air Force populace.  The applicant made it very clear his desire to separate, and no indication he wanted treatment or further opportunities to complete the training course.  Suggesting the mental health providers should have instituted substantial counseling and rehabilitation efforts for a member presenting no interest in such measures is not indicative of an Air Force error.  

As to an equity determination itself, the Board can decline to follow the AFDRB’s finding of an adjustment disorder disqualifying condition, and approve an RE code 3 for a discharge normally deserving of an RE code 2C.  Counsel has provided a significant number of notable character letters attesting to the laudable success the applicant has achieved subsequent to his adjustment disorder discharge.  These letters coupled with current mental health assessments submitted, provide some evidence of the applicant’s suitability for reentry.  The Board must balance this consideration against the concerns raised by military medical providers that the applicant’s stress might re-emerge if he returns to military life.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit F.
 
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 25 Jan 21 for comment (Exhibit G), but has received no response.

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 concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSM and AFPC/JA, and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Specifically, the purported errors raised by his counsel did not prejudice the applicant and does not warrant a change to his RE code.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.  Notwithstanding the above, the Board also notes that counsel provided several character letters attesting to the applicant’s success since his adjustment disorder discharge and current mental health assessments, which provide some evidence of the applicant’s suitability for reentry.  Therefore, should the applicant provide a letter from the Navy recruiter addressed to the Board stating they are aware of his original separation code and would be willing to consider him for the Naval Reserve if the RE code was changed to a waiverable code, the Board would be willing to reconsider the applicant’s request.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

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-2020-01889 in Executive Sessions on 3 Mar 21 and 9 Mar 21:

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 27 Mar 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 21 Jul 20
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 6 Aug 20.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, w/atchs, dated 17 Aug 20.
Exhibit F:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/JA, dated 31 Dec 20. 
Exhibit G:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 25 Jan 21.   

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings pertaining to Docket Number BC-2020-01889, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.