RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-00688
		INDEX CODE 107.00 110.02
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214 reflect receipt of the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) and the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) and an honorable discharge, rather than an entry-level separation.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was awarded the NDSM but it was not included in his DD Form 214. Everyone was awarded the NDSM during wartime in basic training. The erroneous enlistment was not his fault. The Air Force accepted him and he should receive an honorable discharge.
 
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to an National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 submitted by the applicant in his rebuttal (Exhibit F), he enlisted in the Arizona Air National Guard (AZ ANG) on 17 Feb 02. After 4 months and 25 days of service, he was conditionally released on 11 Dec 02 in the grade of airman first class, presumably to enlist in the Regular Air Force. The NGB Form 22 further indicates he received the NDSM. Also in his rebuttal (Exhibit F), the applicant provided a copy of a Military Personnel Flight (MPF) Individual Actions printout from the HQ AFPC Personal Info website. The form indicates the applicant received the NDSM and the AFGCM. The AFGCM is not reflected on the NGB Form 22.

However, these award entries are questionable as they are contrary to the eligibility criteria stipulated by Department of Defense Manual (DODM) 1348.33 and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2803 (Extracts at Tab 1). Briefly, the NDSM is awarded for honorable service on active duty, other than training, for specified periods, and the AFGCM requires three years of honorable service on active duty.  HQ AFPC/DPPPR informally advised the AFBCMR Staff that they could not explain why the NGB entered these two awards into the applicant’s military personnel data system records since he is not eligible for them.

The applicant, then age 27, enlisted for six years in the Regular Air Force on 12 Dec 02 as an airman basic and was assigned to Lackland AFB, TX for basic military training (BMT). 

Apparently within a few days after beginning BMT, he was seen in the emergency room by Surgery for a condition that was diagnosed as a pilonidal cyst (a hairy cyst in the gluteal cleft adjacent to the anus which can become infected with complications requiring significant surgical treatment and prolonged convalescence). There is no information as to what led to this discovery as the applicant apparently was asymptomatic and unaware he had the condition. According to the brief medical narrative, the condition was a disqualifying condition, existed prior to service (EPTS), and was not aggravated by training beyond the normal progression of the ailment. Administrative separation was recommended as well as follow-up, including surgical intervention, with a civilian provider after separation. The summary also indicated the applicant could reapply for enlistment after the condition was resolved.

On 26 Dec 02, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend entry-level separation for erroneous enlistment based on the discovery of the pilonidal cyst. The commander indicated the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards and should not have been allowed to enlist.  The applicant acknowledged receipt, whereupon the commander recommended the applicant’s entry-level separation for defective enlistment. After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to submit statements and acknowledged his discharge would not entitle him to any disability, retirement or severance pay. The case was found legally sufficient on 14 Jan 03, and the discharge authority approved the discharge on 15 Jan 03.

After one month and six days of active service, the applicant was discharged on 17 Jan 03 in the grade of airman with an uncharacterized entry-level separation for failing medical/physical procurement standards. The DD Form 214 reflects “None” in Block 13 for decorations awarded or authorized. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR indicates the applicant was on active duty for a period of one month and 17 [sic] days. [Note: This is incorrect; the applicant was on active duty for one month and six days.] The NDSM is awarded for honorable service during specified periods. Since he received an entry-level separation, with uncharacterized service, he is not eligible for or entitled to the NDSM.  Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS notes that had the Air Force known of the applicant’s EPTS pilonidal cyst, he would not have been allowed to enlist. An erroneous enlistment is one that would not have occurred if the service had known about the applicant’s condition prior to enlistment and the applicant did not intentionally conceal the condition. Based on the file’s documentation, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The DOD determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize this limited service. His uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance with governing directives and should not be viewed as negative or confused with other types of separation. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided copies of an NGB Form 22 he received from the AZ ANG and of his personal decorations information from the MPF website. He believes these documents entitle him to the NDSM and the AFGCM and this should be reflected on his DD Form 214. He believes if the ANG can issue an honorable discharge, he should receive one from the Regular Air Force. He was discharged and/or enlisted in error and through no fault of his own. His service was limited but honorable.

A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his DD Form 214 should be amended. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force or the award criteria established by DOD and Air Force governing directives. We cannot understand why the documents the applicant provides appear to indicate he was awarded the NDSM and the AFGCM as he clearly is not eligible for either of them. As for his entry-level discharge, uncharacterized separations of such limited active duty service as his should not be viewed negatively or confused with other types of separations. The applicant has not substantiated his claim that his DD Form 214 is incorrect. Therefore, we adopt the rationale expressed by the Air Force as the basis for our decision that the applicant has suffered neither an error nor an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we conclude this appeal should be denied.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 12 June 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Vice Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00688 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Feb 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 28 Mar 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Apr 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Apr 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Apr 03, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Vice Chair