RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  2003-00038
		INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow her to enlist in the Air National Guard.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to separating from active duty, she was told by her First Sergeant and others that she would have no problem reenlisting after her discharge.  

In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement, a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and a statement from her recruiter.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 23 July 2002 for a term of 4 years.  She completed basic training and entered air Traffic Controller School.  After one (1) month into the training she complained of headaches.  She was diagnosed with migraine headaches and was medically disqualified from Air Traffic Control Technical Training on 1 November 2002.  Because this was no fault of her own, in accordance with her AF Form 3007, Guaranteed Training Enlistment Agreement Non-Prior Service-USAF, she may be involuntarily discharged, choose to complete enlistment in another available AFSC based on the needs of the AF or she may request separation.  She was offered training in the “Services” specialty but declined.  On          14 November 2002, she requested voluntary separation and it was approved on 21 November 2002.

On 21 November 2002, the applicant was administratively discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (Defective Enlistment Agreement), and received an uncharacterized entry-level separation and a (RE) code of 2C.  She served three (3) months and twenty-nine (29) days total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial.  The applicant was disqualified from Ground Based Controller duty because of her history of migraine headaches that existed prior to service and continued to occur requiring prescription medication while on active duty.  Apparently she had been prescribed the medication to treat her migraines prior to entering service, as there are no service medical record entries showing she received this medication from a military health care provider.  Medical standards for Ground Based Controller duty are stricter than standards for enlistment and continued general military service and recurrent migraine headache of any severity or frequency is disqualifying for duty in that Air Force specialty.  Enlistment medical standards specify that “Recurrent headaches of all types of sufficient severity or frequency as to interfere with normal function or a history of such headaches within 3 years” are disqualifying for enlistment.  Standards for continued service specify “frequent disabling attacks which last for several consecutive days, and are unrelieved treatment” are disqualifying for continued service.  There is insufficient information in the available records to draw a conclusion and make any recommendation regarding her migraine headaches and her suitability for military service, however at the time she was offered training in another Air Force specialty she was presumably considered fit for continued service.

Her discharge was not because of her medical condition, but because she received an entry-level separation as a result of her declination of training in an alternate field and request for separation.  It cannot be determined if her history of migraine headaches will be disqualifying for entry.  Such a determination can be made through routine enlistment evaluation if the administrative issues are resolved in the applicant’s favor.

The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE indicates that based on the review of her case file, her RE code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct.  

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS does not provide a recommendation on this case and provides this advisory for information only.  Airman, are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.  The Department of Defense determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, her uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with Department of Defense and Air Force instructions.  An entry-level/uncharacterized separation should not be viewed as negative and should not be confused with other types of separation.

The DPPRS evaluation is at attachment E.   

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that she does not have a history of chronic migraine headaches.  In May 2000, she experienced one severe headache and was seen by her pediatrician at Kaiser Permanente.  She then had two additional headaches in two months and was told by her doctor that they were related to her menstrual cycle.  She doesn’t recall having any headaches in 2001.  She can’t explain the provider’s statement quoted in the medical consultant’s report, suggesting that she gave a history of chronic headaches.  She feels that her remarks were misinterpreted.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice to warrant changing the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however; we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 2003-00038 in Executive Session on 19 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 03 w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Jun 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 11 Jul 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, undated.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03
	Exhibit G.	Letter, Applicant, 24 Jul 03, w/atch.