RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03334 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry Code (RE) of 4C (Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards) be changed so he can reenter the Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged prematurely because his medical condition was blown out of proportion by the medical staff. He had headaches due to stress and possibly a new diet in addition to adjusting to military life. He has now fortified his body and mind and is better prepared to serve. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement and copies of a medical evaluation, two letters of recommendation, and his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty on 17 Feb 09. On 2 Apr 09, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to discharge him from the Air Force with an entry level separation for erroneous enlistment because he did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist as evidenced by his diagnosis of migraine headaches. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his right to legal counsel and to submit statements in his behalf. On 3 Apr 09, the case was determined to be legally sufficient, and, on 6 Apr 09, the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation. On 7 Apr 09, the applicant was furnished an entry level separation with uncharacterized service for erroneous enlistment, with an RE Code of 4C, and a narrative reason for separation of “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AETC/SGPS states the separation was done in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. A review of his medical records indicates he had up to three headaches a week from Dec 08 throughout Basic Training. He was seen in the emergency room on 5, 10, and 23 Mar 09. He was diagnosed with migraine headaches with mixed tension headaches and was processed for entry level separation because his condition was disqualifying for military service. Since he appears to meet current accession criteria for military duty, a change to his Reentry Code could be supported. A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice which would warrant correcting the record to allow the applicant to reenlist. While it appears the applicant was erroneously issued an RE code of 4C (Failed Medical Physical Procurement Standards) and should have been issued an RE Code 2C (Entry Level Separation without characterization of service), he has provided no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant changing his RE code to one that would allow him to reenlist. The RE code 2C applies to all entry level separations with uncharacterized service, regardless of whether the discharge is voluntary or involuntary. HQ AETC/SGPS states “since it appears that he currently meets accessions criteria, they can support a change of the RE Code.” However, while his separation was based upon his medical condition, the required RE code of 2C is not based on his medical condition, but upon DoD policy for entry level separations. Based on the documentation on file in his master personnel file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Accordingly, his RE code will be administratively changed to 2C, unless the Board determines otherwise. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 Dec 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ 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 an error or injustice warranting a change in the applicant’s RE Code to allow him to reenlist. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we find the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. However, at the time of his separation he was issued an erroneous RE Code of “4C.” As a matter of Department of Defense policy, Airmen are given entry level separation with uncharacterized service, and RE Codes of 2C, when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. Therefore, the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) will administratively correct the applicant’s RE Code to “2C.” Although an RE code of “2C” does not provide the applicant with the relief he is seeking, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the applicant's request. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03334 Executive Session on 13 March 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 May 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AETC/SGPS, dated 11 Oct 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 Dec 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 11.