RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01489
INDEX CODE:  112.10 
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE

	XXX-XX-XXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to 3K (reserved for use by HQ AFPC or AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies) to enable him to return to the Air Force and the narrative reason for separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority.”

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He elected to separate under the option offered those diagnosed with Sickle Cell Trait, not because of his Sickle Cell Trait but because of the duress he was under from difficulties he was experiencing stemming from lack of proper eye glasses.  He was not properly informed of eyewear requirements for basic training and harshly treated as a result of his lack of eyewear and inability to see clearly.  

In support of his application, the applicant provided a personal statement, copies of his military personnel records, a letter from the applicant’s father to the basic training commander, and a statement from the applicant’s recruiter.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 March 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 17 in the grade of airman (E-2) for a period of four years.  On 6 March 2003, the applicant underwent a routine entry medical examination and was diagnosed with Sickle Cell Trait.  On 10 March 2003, the applicant signed a “Statement of Understanding of Sickle-Cell Trait and Discharge Options.”  On 12 March 2003, the applicant signed an Air Force Form 31, Airman’s Request for Early Separation.  The discharge authority approved the separation as being in the best interest of the Air Force.  On 20 March 2003, the applicant was discharged with an uncharacterized, entry-level separation with a RE code of 2C, involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge or entry-level separation without characterization of service.  He had served 17 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s records is warranted.  The BCMR Consultant states that the applicant was diagnosed with Sickle Cell Trait after his arrival at basic training.  Even though Sickle Cell Trait is not Sickle Cell Disease, individuals with Sickle Cell Trait still have abnormal hemoglobin and abnormal red blood cells that may sickle in the setting of vigorous exercise and dehydration as well as exposure to the lower atmospheric pressures experienced during flight.  Complications that may arise as a result can include stroke and death, however this is rare.  Basic trainees identified with Sickle Cell Trait, if asymptomatic and without any history of symptoms suggestive of sickling are qualified for continued general military service; however, they are offered the option to either separate or remain on active duty after counseling regarding the potential risks of their condition.  

The BCMR Consultant states that after the applicant’s diagnosis and counseling for Sickle Cell Trait, he elected to separate.  However, the applicant’s contentions are that he decided to separate under the Sickle Cell Trait option, not because of the Sickle Cell Trait, but due to the unfair and discriminatory treatment he received the first week of training.  He encountered difficulties when he arrived at basic training without glasses or a contact lens case and began training without corrective lenses.  He was directed to discard his contact lenses and received loaner glasses from the optometry clinic several days later; however, wearing them made him dizzy.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant underwent medical prescreening where the applicant’s nearsightedness corrected by contact lenses was identified.  The applicant failed the depth perception test, but was medically cleared for entry onto active duty.  The medical prescreen form reflects a hand-written comment “Bring contact case!”  Contact lens wear is not allowed during basic training.  Typically, enlistees are encouraged by their recruiters to bring glasses to basic training.  However, the applicant reports he did not own glasses and provides a letter from his recruiter stating he was not properly briefed on what to take and what not to take to basic training.  The Optometry Clinic serving basic trainees has contact lens cases and solution to dispense to trainees.  Trainees requiring glasses are provided a pair of “loaner glasses” on the day of their optometry evaluation that adequately correct their vision for participation in training.  New prescription glasses are typically available to the trainees within five to six days.  The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE indicates that the reenlistment code 2C was properly accessed to the applicant’s record as he was discharged in accordance with Air Force directives.  DPPAE is not opposed to using RE code 3K, if the Board wishes to offer relief to the applicant.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS is of the opinion that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  DPPRS states that by signing the “Statement of Understanding of Sickle-Cell Trait and Discharge Options” the applicant acknowledged the Air Force’s policy on sickle cell trait and understood, if he elected to separate, he would not be allowed back into the Air Force.  DPPRS concurs with the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation and recommend no change in the applicant’s records.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was convinced he should use his option to separate under Sickle Cell Trait only after the unjust treatment and discrimination he suffered during “hell week” in basic training.  After he returned home and talked to his father (a 21-year Air Force veteran) he was told that what had happened to him was wrong and it is not a true indication of the Air Force.  The BCMR Medical Consultant’s advisory indicates that loaner glasses are available on the day of a trainee’s optometry visit and that exact prescription glasses are available within five to six days.  In his case, he did not receive loaner glasses until seven to eight days after training had started and was told that his prescription glasses would not be available for two weeks.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the normal procedures in place for recruits presenting without glasses are adequate to enable participation in training.  He is living proof that this statement is far from factual.  It would be an honor for him to serve in the Air Force and he would like to have that opportunity.  He knows that an organization that stands for freedom, equal opportunity, respect, honor, integrity, and discipline such as the Air Force does not tolerate what happened to him.  He would appreciate the Board’s support in restoring his dream of joining the Air Force and serving his country.  The applicant’s rebuttal 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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his reenlistment code or narrative reason for separation should be changed.  The applicant elected to separate from the Air Force of his own free will after he was diagnosed with sickle cell trait.  He contends that he was persuaded to elect separation due to treatment he received during basic training cause by his inability to see.  We find no evidence that his decision to elect separation was coerced in any way or that he was treated any differently than any other individual in the same situation.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant provides no persuasive evidence that he was unfairly or incorrectly discharged.  We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

__________________________________________________________________

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 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01489 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Apr 03.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 Aug 03.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Nov 03.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Sep 03.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.
	Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 18 Dec 03.

					
								Panel Chair