RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02622 COUNSEL: XXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected as follows: 1. Block 26 – Separation Code be changed from JDA (Fraudulent Entry into Military Service) to read JFC (Erroneous Entry (Other)) 2. Block 27 – Reentry (RE) Code be changed FROM 2C (Involuntary Separation with honorable or uncharacterized character of service) to read RE-1M 3. Block 28 – Narrative Reason for Separation be changed from “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service” to read “Erroneous Enlistment” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The applicant’s eight-page statement is summarized as follows: 1) During the first meeting with her Air Force recruiter, the applicant disclosed her bee and penicillin allergies. The recruiter informed her that the allergies were not a problem and her father witnessed the conversation. 2) During the second meeting with her recruiter, she was asked about the severity of her bee allergy to which she replied she was required to carry two epinephrine auto-injectors or Epi- Pens. Her recruiter instructed her that she did not need to disclose this information when she processed through the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). 3) She met her recruiter the day before she reported to the MEPS. He had her practice filling out the same paperwork she would complete at the MEPS, instructing her on the appropriate “Yes” and “No” responses to each question. She did not believe she was doing anything wrong, but thought her recruiter was helping her to complete the MEPS process by ensuring she did not make mistakes on her paperwork. The following day, she completed the MEPS paperwork as instructed by her recruiter. 4) On 7 Sep 10, she reported to boot camp. Approximately two weeks into basic military training (BMT) she began to experience some wear and tear issues with her knee. On 18 Oct 10, during a visit to the Trainee Health clinic, the physician noticed she had a prescription for an EpiPen in her medical history. She immediately disclosed her use of the EpiPen since 2008. The physician informed her she would need a waiver. 5) On 27 Oct 10, a medical provider reviewed the applicant’s medical records and recommended she be administratively separated from service, but permitted to enlist when her condition was resolved. However, her commander processed her administrative separation for Fraudulent Enlistment and stated she would be ineligible for reentry in the Air Force. 6) The applicant subsequently informed her recruiter of her impending discharge because of her condition to which he replied “sorry that happened.” The applicant states an erroneous enlistment does not involve fraud and a fraudulent entry involves deliberate deception on the part of the member. She does not dispute her bee allergy disqualifies her from military service; however, she does adamantly dispute she deliberately concealed her bee allergy. She disclosed the allergy to her recruiter, who represents the Air Force; therefore, she did not conceal any facts or deliberately misrepresent the nature of her bee allergy. In addition, she would not attempt to conceal a condition that was readily apparent in her medical history. She declined to seek a waiver after she was informed that obtaining a waiver was essentially impossible and would delay her separation. She can eventually meet the medical standards for enlistment. In accordance with a Department of Defense instruction, “Applicants who have been treated for 3-5 years with maintenance venom immunotherapy DO meet the standards.” If she were to seek treatment, her current narrative reason for separation and separation code will make it almost impossible to enlist in the Air Force. In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement, copies of a support letter, her DD Form 214 and chronological records of medical care. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 7 Sep 10, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 5 Nov 10, she received an uncharacterized entry level separation for fraudulent entry into military service. She served eight months and one day on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason. SPGS acknowledges the applicant’s claim that she informed her recruiter of her allergy and he informed her not to disclose the information; however, the DD Form 2807, Report of Medical History, states that making a false statement may result in 5 years confinement and/or a $10,000 fine or both and she still withheld the information. SGPS states the separation was done in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit B. HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS notes that although the applicant may have been informed not to disclose her medical history, she agreed to not disclose her history. DPSOS indicates that no errors or injustices in the processing of the discharge action were found. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel record, the discharge to include the characterization of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. In addition, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge process. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her RE code. DPSOA states RE code 2C is correct and driven by the applicant’s entry level separation with an uncharacterized character of service. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the Air Force opinions narrowly address whether the discharge fell within allowable parameters. In addition, the propriety and equity of the decision is not addressed. Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, allows for the separation authority to waive the discharge and allow the member to remain in service. Her separation documents do not address whether this option was even considered. There is no indication any effort was made to help her meet the standards for a medical waiver of her condition. Since she concealed a medical condition that she had no way of knowing was service disqualifying, it is untenable that the separation authority chose to discharge her and not consider a medical waiver to allow her to continue to serve. The applicant’s complete submission 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After reviewing the applicant’s submission and the evidence of record, we are persuaded that some relief is warranted. Although the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge were appropriate and she was assigned the correct RE code, after review of the total circumstances of her case, we believe she should be provided the opportunity to apply for enlistment in the armed services. We note the applicant’s specific requests regarding the correction of her record, i.e., assignment of a “1” series RE code and change of the narrative reason to “Erroneous Enlistment; however, in our view, the more appropriate corrections would be to change the reason for her separation to “Secretarial Authority,” with a separation code of “KFF,” and an RE code of “3K” (Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate). Our recommendation in no way guarantees the applicant will be allowed to return to the Air Force or any branch of the service. Whether she is successful in reentering a branch of the armed forces will depend on the needs of the service to which application is made. Therefore, we recommend her records be corrected to the extent indicated below. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 5 November 2012, she was discharged by reason of “Secretarial Authority,” with a separation code of “KFF” and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “3K.” _________________________________________________________________ All members voted to correct the record. The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 20 Mar 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2011-02622: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AETC/SGPS, dated 12 Aug 11. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 21 Oct 11. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 23 Nov 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 11 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jan 12. Panel Chair