RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01106
		INDEX CODE:  100.06, 110.00
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  9 OCTOBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2C” be changed to permit reentry into the military.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code should be changed because of mistakes made by both the Raleigh Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) and the medical squadron.

On 26 Aug 05, when he was first processed in at the Raleigh MEPS, his height was 64 inches and his weight 153 pounds, with a max weight of 160 pounds.  He maintained a qualified weight until    1 May 06.  On 2 May 06, he was given a weight and height measurement, his height was 63 inches and his weight 157 pounds.  The same day he was given a Body Fat Measurement (BFM) which was 20%.  One week later he was given another BFM and was at 24%.  He was told he was going into a program to lose the body fat, but instead he was processed for separation.

In support of his request, applicant provided copies of his DD Form 214 and separation documents.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 May 06, for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 15 May 06, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for erroneous entry.  Specifically, applicant exceeded the maximum allowed Body Fat Standard (BFS) of 20% with a BFM of 24%.  Had the Air Force known prior to his enlistment they could have rendered him ineligible to enlist.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 22 May 06, and after consulting with legal counsel, submitted statements in his own behalf.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended applicant be separated from the service with an entry-level separation.  On 2 Jun 06, the discharge authority approved an entry-level separation.

On 8 Jun 06, applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation, with separation code JFC (Erroneous Entry (Other)), and was issued an RE Code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an uncharacterized entry-level separation).  He served one month and seven days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting a change to his reenlistment eligibility code.

Airmen 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 (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 their limited service.  Therefore, his uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 20 Jun 07, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient 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 complete submission, the Board is of the opinion there was no deliberate deception on the part of the applicant upon his entry into the Air Force.  While the RE code assigned to the applicant, at the time was technically correct and in accordance with the applicable instructions, we believe it would be an injustice for him to continue to suffer its effects in the way of enlistment opportunities in the armed forces.  Furthermore, we find it appropriate that he be afforded the opportunity to apply for a waiver to enlist in the armed services and allow him the opportunity to further serve his country.  Whether or not he is successful will depend on the needs of the respective services at the time and our recommendation in no way guarantees that he will be allowed to return to any branch of service; this will simply afford him the opportunity to apply for a waiver to enlist in the armed services.  Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 8 June 2006, he was separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority) with a separation code of JFF and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 3K.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number     BC-2007-01106 in Executive Session on 21 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
XXXXXXXXXX, Member
XXXXXXXXXX, Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 06, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 May 07.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 07.

                                 XXXXXXXXXX
                                Panel Chair