RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00979

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 4C be upgraded to 1.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During basic training he developed a hernia and was discharged.  After his discharge, he underwent corrective surgery and would like to reenter the Air Force.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a statement from a surgeon indicating that he performed corrective surgery on the applicant’s hernia on 14 November 2001, and the applicant is now able to go back to full duty.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 February 2001 for a period of 6 years.

On 21 February 2001, it was determined he did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist because of symptomatic congenital umbilical hernia.

On 5 March 2001, the commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge for erroneous enlistment with an entry-level separation.

On 9 March 2001, he received an uncharactarized entry-level separation.  He was issued an RE code of 4C (Failure to Meet Physical Standards for Enlistment).  He completed 20 days of active service, with 1 month and 10 days of prior inactive service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant’s reenlistment code can be changed so that he may apply for reenlistment; however, he must meet all medical and physical requirements for enlistment.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states, in part, that the applicant has a history of congenital umbilical hernia, to include two surgical repairs prior to his enlistment.  The governing instruction, lists hernia, other than small asymptomatic umbilical hernia, as disqualifying for enlistment.  In addition, a history of an operation for a hernia within the preceding 60 days is disqualifying.  The applicant underwent a third hernia surgery, which employed the Kugel patch.  Surgical repairs are usually successful, and repairs employing the Kugel patch as in the applicant’s case tend to be reliable.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, that upon his entry-level separation, the applicant received an RE code 4C which appropriately identifies his separation for failure to meet physical standards for enlistment.  

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 November 2002 for review and response within 30 days.  However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contention, we find no showing of either an error or injustice.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant’s RE Code can be changed so that he may apply for reenlistment; however, since the applicant has undergone three hernia operations within the last four years, we are not persuaded that his condition has stabilized and there is no guarantee that if he is returned to active duty and the physical demands associated with such service, his condition will not reoccur.  In the absence of such evidence, we do not believe he has sustained his burden of proving that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  The RE Code assigned at the time of his separation is correct and accurately identifies the fact that he was separated for failure to meet physical standards for enlistment.  Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 issue(s) 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 Docket Number 02-00979 in Executive Session on 16 January 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Oct 02.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Nov 02.