AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2020-00763	
					
The applicant was discharged on 12 Apr 16 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Honorable discharge for Discharge Failure to Complete Commissioning or Warrant Program.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his reenlistment eligibility code.  The board was conducted on 25 Feb 21.  

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but declined and requested the board be completed based on a records only review.  

The applicant was not represented by counsel.    
 
The attached examiner’s brief (provided to applicant only), extracted from available service records, contains pertinent data regarding the circumstances and character of the applicant’s military service. 
  
FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 3K.

The DRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the narrative reason for discharge if such changes are warranted.  If applicable, the board can also change the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code.  In reviewing discharges, the board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant.  The board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to determine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  

The applicant states that the RE code of 4L has barred him from applying for, or having any serious chance of obtaining a JAG position with any military branch. He says it seems like an unjust and inequitable penalty for voluntarily leaving OTS. The applicant states that he voluntarily left OTS because he wanted to be a JAG officer instead of pursuing a career as an intelligence officer. He states that he had been accepted to law school shortly before leaving but after agreeing to attend OTS. He explains that he could’ve served 4 years as an intelligence officer and then attend law school but he would’ve been close to the age cutoff for all branches when he would apply for JAG in the future. He also explains that he would have had to retake the LSAT because his score would have expired. He states because of his decision, he was given a 4L RE code. He further explains that some branches refuse to let him apply and other refuse to give him a waiver or take his application seriously. 

The DRB reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. The reenlistment eligibility code received was deemed appropriate.

CONCLUSION:  
The board found insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant’s discharge. The board understands that this reenlistment eligibility code may render the member ineligible for some privileges however, this is not an issue of inequity or impropriety, therefore the discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate and his request was not approved. 

The DRB results were approved by the board president on 28 Feb 21.  If desired, the applicant can request a list of the board members and their votes by writing to:  

Air Force Review Boards Agency
Attn: Discharge Review Board
3351 Celmers Lane
Joint Base Andrews, NAF Washington, MD 20762-6602  

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief (Applicant Only)