RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02514 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to change his Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code “JDA,” “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service” and Re-entry (RE) code of “2C,” Approved Honorable Involuntary Separation or Entry Level Separation, to allow him to apply for reentry into another branch of service. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His separation was based on medical misinformation and he would like his DD Form 214 changed to allow him to reenlist in the military. He did not report having asthma or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) during his MEPS physical. He takes full responsibility for not stating he had ADHD. He was excited about serving his country and forgot to mark it down. Regarding the asthma; he was told that he had reactive airway disease (RAD). It was not until later that he was told it was asthma. He should have remembered and documented it with the MEPS Doctor. In support of his request, the applicant provides a written statement, copy of his DD Form 214 and other supporting documentation. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 September 2010. On 8 October 2010, his commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge under the provisions of Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208 Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section C, Defective Enlistments. Specifically, he did not meet the medical requirements to enlist. On 8 October 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s intent to discharge him and waived his right to consult counsel and submit statements on his own behalf. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged with an entry-level separation. The applicant was discharged effective 15 October 2010 with an entry level separation. He was credited with serving 5 months and 7 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS supports a change in the RE code. SGPS states that at the time the separation was done it was in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. Since the applicant has had a negative methacholine challenge test and has not been treated for ADHD since 2008, they can support a change in his RE code. The complete AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of discharge authority. The 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 in his narrative reason for separation. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the RE Code 2C is required based on the entry level separation with uncharacterized service and the applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to his RE Code. HQ AETC/SG states their office can support a change in his RE Code to allow him to reapply for military service. However, the RE Code 2C is not driven by a medical condition and HQ AETC/SG (medical community) does not have authority or any valid input as to the correctness or recommended changes to the RE Code. They are qualified to recommend the applicant be given an opportunity to be medically screened for reentry into military service based on his current medical status (if otherwise eligible). A waiver of the RE Code 2C from recruiting services based on medical community’s recommendation would be more appropriate. DPSOA states if the Board’s decision is to provide a change of RE code, the only other option for applicant’s RE Code is 3K “Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate,” which would still require a waiver from recruiting services. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a letter dated 4 January 2012, the applicant reiterates his contention that he did not disclose having asthma or ADHD during his MEPS physical because he was never formally diagnosed with either condition. As a child, he was diagnosed with mild Reactive Airway Disease (RAD) not asthma. Neither he nor his parents were aware that asthma had been written in his medical records until it became an issue during BMT. Also as a child, he was tested for ADHD and was diagnosed with very mild symptoms and was given a low dose of medication which he took for approximately one month. The applicant states that upon his discharge from the Air Force he immediately sought formal testing for both illnesses. One test confirmed that he did not have asthma and the ADHD test showed he has only mild symptoms that do not require medication. It is his belief that he has met the requirements to reapply for enlistment. The applicant addresses the Air Force offices of primary responsibility statements that he did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing by pointing out what he believes were questionable medical ethics/treatment, lack of ability to communicate with his parents, and coercion to sign the forms and ask questions later. Additionally he points out that he was not given the opportunity to review or sign his DD Form 214 when he was discharged. In closing he reiterates that he did not knowingly commit fraud and asks that the reentry code and narrative reason for separation be corrected so that he may serve his country in the branch of service of his choice. The applicant’s complete response with attachments is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find that it supports a determination that the applicant was improperly separated from active duty in 2010. The narrative reason for separation, separation code, and RE code which were issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflect the circumstances of his separation and we do not find it to be in error or unjust. We took note of AETC/SGPS’ evaluation; however, in view of the above and absent persuasive evidence that the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of AFPC/DPSOS and AFPC/DPSOA and adopt their rationale as the basis for our determination in this case. Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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 this application BC-2011-02514 in Executive Session on 2 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 June 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 27 July 2011. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 25 October 2011. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 29 November 2011. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 December 2011. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 January 2012. Panel Chair