RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-00830 INDEX CODE:	112.10
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reason for discharge be changed from “Fraudulent Entry” to a classification which will not potentially limit his ability to reenlist or add areas of concern/questions to his background.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His statements of having received physical therapy one year prior to his ankle injury were misinterpreted. In actuality, he did not receive any physical therapy for his prior ankle injury. He had only seen his football team trainer at high school for a brief time following the injury.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, and copies of civilian medical documents, military medical documents, discharge documentation, and an Air Force Fitness Excellence Award certificate.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 22 June 2004, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1). On 29 July 2004, he presented for treatment of ankle pain that he had been experiencing for five days. As a result of his medical evaluation, military medical documents indicate the applicant reported he suffered an injury of a broken right ankle in 2002 from playing football in which he received physical therapy for one year.

On 22 October 2004, his commander notified the applicant that he was recommending the applicant for an entry-level separation for fraudulent entry. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and indicated he waived his rights to consult counsel and to submit a statement in his own behalf. On 26 October 2004, the Chief, Adverse Actions, found the case to be legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be separated

with an entry-level separation. The discharge authority approved the recommendation for the applicant’s discharge under the authority of Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Table 5.4, Rule 1.

On 4 November 2004, the applicant was separated with an entry- level, uncharacterized discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “fraudulent entry into the military service.” He served 4 months and 22 days on active duty.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a change in the reason for his discharge. The BCMR Consultant finds no error or injustice in the processing of the applicant’s discharge and indicates that personnel who are unable to perform their military duties due to reasons of failure to adapt or due to a pre-existing medical condition, among other reasons discovered in the first 180 days of military service, are separated with an Entry-Level Separation and “uncharacterized” service characterization, in accordance with provisions outlined under Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.15. The BCMR Medical Consultant states that addressing the likely origin or etiology of the applicant’s recurrent ankle problems, although he may have experienced some recovery from an initial injury during high school, it is more likely than not that the onset of his ankle pain resulted from the sustained physical requirements of performing Basic Military Training, e.g., running, marching; but that the applicant’s pain did not represent either a de novo ankle injury nor one that represents permanent aggravation of his pre-existing injury. Thus, while “Erroneous Entry” could have been an alternative narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge, his apparent willful failure to disclose a previous ankle problem on his DD Form 2801-1, Report of Medical Examination, which the record reflects he had full knowledge of, is consistent with the fraudulent entry designation that he received.

The BCMR Medical Consultant lauds the applicant’s motivation to serve, in either a military or ultimately civilian law enforcement job; and is pleased to learn that he has been active with “running, physical training, and hunting (reportedly) without experiencing any affects or discomfort” from his previous right ankle injury. However, these factors do not invalidate either the type or narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge from military service.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 May 2008 for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission and the evidence of record we are persuaded that relief is warranted. We note the discharge action taken against the applicant was in accordance with the applicable instruction. However, we find the narrative reason for his entry-level separation; i.e., fraudulent entry, to be overly negative. In our deliberations of this case, it appeared to us that the word “fraudulent” could be misconstrued as misconduct. While the applicant may have had problems progressing in basic training due to the aggravation of a two- year old football injury that he failed to mention upon entry, we do not believe his failure to disclose his injury was intentionally deceptive. In addition, since the applicant will have to pass a physical prior to his reentry into the military, we feel he should be afforded the opportunity of having a waiverable RE code if the service is interested in his skills. Therefore, in order to correct an injustice of improperly labeling the applicant, his narrative reason for separation and reenlistment code should be corrected as indicated below.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the reentry code, issued  in  conjunction  with  his  entry  level  separation  on
4 November 2004, was “3K” (reserved for use by HQ AFPC or AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies), and his narrative reason for separation was “Secretarial Authority.”

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 9 July 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-00830:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 08, w/atch. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 26 Apr 08. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 08.

AFBCMR BC-2008-00830

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the reentry code, issued in conjunction with his entry level separation on 4 November 2004, was “3K” (reserved for use by HQ AFPC or AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies), and his narrative reason for separation was “Secretarial Authority.”