RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01638 

 INDEX NUMBER: 145.00 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His reentry (RE) code of 4C (“Separated for concealment of 
juvenile records, minority failure to meet physical standards for 
enlistment, failure to attain a 9.0 reading grade level as 
measured by the Air Force Reading Abilities Test (AFRAT), or void 
enlistment”) be changed to a waiverable RE code to allow 
reenlistment. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was allowed to enlist in the Air Force with a waiver for his 
eye sight and after reporting to basic military training and 
undergoing test was notified that his waiver was unacceptable and 
that he would be discharged. He was informed that if he had 
Lasik surgery to correct his vision he would be allowed to 
reenlist 12 months after the surgery was completed. 

 

In support of the appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, extracts from his military personnel records, and extracts 
from AFI 48-123, USAF Refractive Surgery (USAF-RS) PROGRAM. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman 
basic on 28 Jun 04 for a term of four years. 

 

On 28 Jul 04, the applicant was notified by his commander that he 
was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for Erroneous 
Enlistment. The specific reason for this action was his receipt 
of a medical narrative summary that found the applicant did not 
meet minimum medical standards to enlist. 

 


The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and waived 
his right to consult with counsel and submit statements on his 
own behalf. On 28 Jul 04, a legal review of the discharge 
package was conducted by the staff judge advocate, who 
recommended the applicant be discharged with an entry-level 
separation. 

 

The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the 
applicant be given an entry-level separation. 

 

On 13 Aug 04, he was discharged, under the provisions of AFI 36-
3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Failed 
Medical/Physical Procurement, and assigned an RE code of 4C. He 
served a total of 1 month, and 16 days of total active service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states the separation was done 
in accordance with established policy and administrative 
procedures and they do not support a change to his RE Code. 

 

The complete AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 30 Jul 10, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

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

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 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 Docket Number BC-
2010-01638 in Executive Session on 4 Nov 10, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 7 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 10.