RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01724
INDEX CODE:  112.10
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX		COUNSEL: NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 December 2005

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and reason for separation be changed to allow him to return to military service.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His medical condition is now controlled without side effects and he and his civilian doctor feel he is fit for military service.  

The applicant does not provide any evidence to support his appeal.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 September 2002, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of six years.  

After completing basic military training, the applicant entered training as a security forces helper.  During his training, he was referred for evaluation of a hand tremor that interfered with his ability to fire a pistol to qualify and meet training requirements.  During his initial evaluation, the applicant stated that he had a history of hand tremors for five to seven years, worse with anxiety, which had interfered with handwriting.  On 3 February 2003, the staff neurologist diagnosed the applicant with probable essential tremor and noted that if his condition interfered with his military duty, it disqualified the applicant for continued military service.  On 27 February 2003, Student Administration recommended the applicant be reclassified into another career field.  His commander approved the recommendation for reclassification on 28 February 2003.  On 10 March 2003, the applicant requested he be separated from active duty effective 28 March 2003 citing a defective enlistment agreement.  On 20 March 2003, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request.  

The applicant was honorably discharged effective 28 March 2003 with a separation code KDS (defective enlistment agreement) and a reentry code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge).  He had served 7 months and 11 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 Medical Consultant states the applicant’s condition is a chronic condition that can be progressive, has already been shown to interfere with military duty, and now requires the use of medication.  The risk for progression of his condition and previously demonstrated interference with duty makes the applicant a poor risk for accession despite his high motivation to serve.  It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states, the very next day after disqualifying on the 9mm pistol due to his tremors, he tested again and qualified with a respectable score.  He was initially offered the opportunity to be reclassified into another career filed; however, he turned the offer down because he wanted to be a policeman.  If he weren’t going to be able to be a policeman in the military, he would try his luck in the civilian sector.  Since his discharge, he has successfully completed an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice/Police with a 3.8 grade point average.  He has been employed as a Security Guard with no problems relating to his condition.  His placement on medication has caused the tremors to significantly subside.  He has consulted with his personal doctor and two neurologists from the National Tremor Foundation, all whom state that he is fully capable of a future in Law Enforcement.  He has also since taken the Navy firearms qualification course and has qualified on both the Glock 9mm and M-4 Carbine.  The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachment, 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 probable error or injustice concerning the applicant’s RE Code and reason for separation.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant was disqualified for assignment as a military policeman due to his pre-existing medical condition.  Following his commanders approval for reclassification, the applicant voluntarily signed a statement on 10 March 2003 requesting separation from the Air Force due to a defective enlistment agreement.  We note that AFI 48-123, paragraph A3.19.5.8 states a condition, like the applicant’s, is disqualifying for entrance into military service.   In view of this, the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopts their rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The RE code and reason for separation which were issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflect the circumstances of his separation, and we do not find these to be in error or unjust.  Therefore, the Board finds 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 probable 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 14 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01724 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 May 04.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 5 Apr 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 05.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dtd 14 Jul 03, w/atch.