RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03485
		INDEX CODE:  100.03
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow enlistment in the Marines.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE code he received was not advantageous for career advancement in the military and denies him the opportunity to pursue the military career he desires.

In support of his request, applicant submits a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and five Letters of Recommendation.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s records show that he enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1998 and was discharge on or about 10 July 1998, under the provisions of MCO P1900. 16C, paragraph 205 (entry level performance and conduct), due to incapability, lack of reasonable effort, failure to adapt to the Marine Corps environment, or minor disciplinary infractions.  He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 December 1998 on a Guaranteed Training Enlistment Agreement as a Tactical Aircraft Maintenance Apprentice.  On 27 June 1999, he experienced a seizure, which was witnessed by a companion.  Subsequently, he was diagnosed with a tonic seizure disorder.  Just prior to entering active duty, the applicant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents, one of which resulted in a head injury with brief loss of consciousness and diagnosis of concussion.  On follow-up with neurology at the end of July, the applicant had been seizure free and off of medication.  However, he remained disqualified from his career field.  On 6 July 1999, he was medically disqualified from working on the flight line and continued training in his contracted career field.  In accordance with his agreement with the Air Force, on 19 July 1999, he requested voluntary separation due to non-fulfillment of the enlistment agreement.  On 13 August 1999, he was administratively discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, (Defective Enlistment Agreement), with an honorable discharge. He was issued an RE code of 4M “Air Force breach of enlistment/reenlistment agreement”.  He served eight months and five days total active service.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  He states the applicant voluntarily separated in accordance with his Guaranteed Training Enlistment Agreement after medical disqualification.  He requests change of his reenlistment code to something that would enable him to enlist in the Marines.  The reenlistment code on his Air Force discharge certificate is 4M, accurately reflecting “Air Force breach of enlistment/reenlistment agreement”.  New onset generalized seizure disorder is usually cause for referral into the disability evaluation system for a determination of fitness for continued military service.  Had the applicant been so referred, it is likely that he would have been found unfit and discharged with severance pay (rated 10%).  A disability discharge would result in a reenlistment code of 2Q barring reenlistment.  Enlisted members may not be retained on active duty on medical hold without their consent.  Although a significant new diagnosis, it was not life or limb threatening warranting retention on medical hold when a voluntary separation was being processed.  The applicant does not indicate if he has had subsequent difficulty with seizure disorder or not or whether he has attempted to access veterans benefits.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  

The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial advising that the RE code of 4M, “Air Force breach of enlistment/reenlistment agreement,” is correct.  On 13 August 1999, the applicant was involuntarily discharged; with a separation code of KDS, “Defective Enlistment Agreement” with his character of service listed as honorable.  Applicant did not provide any evidence disputing the reason he was discharged; therefore, there is no evidence presented to support changing the RE code.  Waivers of RE codes for enlistment are considered and approved based on the needs of the respective military service and recruiting initiatives at the time of the enlistment inquiry.

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 21 Nov 03 and 15 Jun 04, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________

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; the majority of the Board agrees with the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinions and recommendation and adopts the consultant’s rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-03485 in Executive Session on 10 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

A majority of the Board voted to deny the application.  Ms. 	 voted to correct the records but elected not to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 May 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Nov 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jun 04.