RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-01949

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His Reentry (RE) code of “2C” which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” be changed to allow him to reenter the service.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

There is no evidence he is unfit for military service.  He received conflicting information on whether he needed a waiver to qualify for a combat position.  He was not informed when he choose to separate, that he would be barred from future service.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force airman basic (E-1). 

On 4 May 18, a Mental Health Evaluation was published following the applicant’s diagnosis of Unspecified Anxiety Disorder (by history).  It was determined that the applicant’s diagnosis did not meet retention standards for continued military service and that the applicant’s mental health history was so severe that his ability to function effectively in a military environment was significantly impaired.  A waiver option was discussed with the applicant but he declined and opted to pursue an Entry Level Separation (ELS).

On 11 May 18, the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged from the Air Force for defective enlistment under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section 5C, Defective Enlistment, Paragraph 5.14, under the basis for discharge for Erroneous Enlistment with an entry level separation.  The specific reason for this action was a mental health evaluation summary found the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist.  The memorandum stated the applicant should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because he had a pre-service history of Unspecified Anxiety Disorder.  The medical staff found him unqualified for military service, rendering him ineligible for a disability separation.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, his right to consult counsel, and to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 18 May 18, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an ELS.

On 18 May 18, according to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, the applicant received an ELS with uncharacterized service.  His narrative reason for separation is “Erroneous Entry (Other)” and his RE code is 2C.  He was credited with 1 month and 16 days of active service.

On 6 Jun 19, the Discharge Review Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to change the his narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority,” and to change his RE code to “3K,” finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the application.  Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts, there is no evidence of an error or injustice in reference to the applicant’s RE code.  The applicant received an RE code 2C based on receiving an ELS with an uncharacterized character of service.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Psychological Advisor recommends denying the application.  There is insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s request for a change to his records.  The applicant was given a chance to stay in the service through a possible waiver but in a different position and would have been supported by his mental health provider; however, due to his lack of motivation to stay in the Air Force, a recommendation was not made and the applicant did not contest the decision.  He also chose to pursue an ELS because he was not able to be in a combat position that he desired.  The Psychological Advisor acknowledges that the applicant had openly reported his mental health condition to his recruiter and personnel at the Military Entrance Processing Station but again, a waiver was needed in order to proceed with training and stay in the service, which he chose not to pursue.  There was no evidence he had any mental health issues at the time that would have affected or influenced his decision for an ELS.  Lastly, liberal consideration is not applied to the applicant’s petition because there is no evidence of any misconduct and mental health conditions during or after service, and his past mental health condition existed prior to service.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 5 Aug 20 for comment (Exhibit E), 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 recommendations of AFPC/DP2SSM and the AFBCMR Psychological Advisor and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  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-2020-01949 in Executive Session on 28 Jan 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 28 May 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 24 Jul 20.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychological Advisor, dated 24 Jul 20.
Exhibit E:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 5 Aug 20.

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.