F EB	1 2017

SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:

DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2012-02471
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date entered active duty be changed from 10 January 2012
6 May, 2011.
His type of separation be changed from "Entry Level Separation”  "Honorable.”

to

to

His character  of service be changed from "Uncharacterized" to "Injured or Disable."

APPLICANT. CONTENDS THAT:

His. DD Form 214 does not reflect the recent decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), in which they indicate he has an honorable characterization of service. Potential employers are always questioning why his DD. Form 214 does not match his VA
20 percent disability.	Moreover, he has been .refused Veterans ' preference due to his DD Form 214 not reflecting honorable.

He took an oath on 6 May 2011 and due to the requirements of reporting every month and having to maintain a specific standard, his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, Block 12a, Date Entered AD this period, should match his enlistment date.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the applicant's DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 6 May 2011.

On 10 January 2012, the applicant was ordered to active duty under Title 10, United States Code, Section 12301(d) for training during the period 10 January 2012 through 11 May 2012.

On 17 February 2012, the applicant was furnished an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service with a narrative reason for separation of "Failed Medical Physical Procurement Standards," Separation Code of JFW (erroneous enlistment; medical condition disqualifying for military service; with no medical waiver approved) and .a RE code of 4C (concealment of juvenile records; or minority, or failure to meet physical standards; or failure to obtain 9.0 reading  grade). He was credited with one month and eight days active service for this period.

On 5 March 2013, the Board considered the applicant's request for the following: 1) His characterization of discharge be changed to honorable, 2) His narrative reason for discharge be changed, 3) He be disability retired with a service connected, post-surgical 100 percent disability rating, 4) He be reimbursed for out-of pocket expenses, time off work, and for his personal insurance costs, and 5) He be promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4).

The applicant contended that although the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) declared him fit he was unjustly forced out of the military under the basis of erroneous enlistment, after sustaining a knee fracture and torn meniscus during Basic Military Training (BMT). The Board disagreed with the Medical Consultant’s recommendation for the applicant's record to be · corrected to reflect he was medically discharged because the Consultant's recommendation was based upon giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt. The Board concluded that although the applicant had disclosed a history of chronic knee pain secondary to left meniscal and left anterior cruciate ligament injuries, the evidence of record taken as a whole, was not substantial to reach the conclusion that it was permanently aggravated; thus, necessitating his processing through the Military Disability Evaluation System (DES). For an accounting ·of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's original · consideration and the rationale of the decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit I.

On 18 September 2013, by virtue of a DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, the applicant requested reconsideration of upgrading his discharge to honorable with a service connected injury, due to his receipt of a 10 percent combined disability rating by the Department of Veteran 's Affairs (DVA), see Exhibit J.
On 6 January 2015, the Board considered and denied the applicant's request for reconsideration and the Board majority noted the DVA DES operates under Title -38 and is authorized to provide continuing medical care and assistance. The Board determined the DVA's position is separate and independent of the initial consideration of the case. As such, the majority of the Board found no basis to recommend favorable consideration. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's reconsideration and the rationale of the decision by the Board, see the Addendum Record of Proceedings (AROP) at Exhibit K.  ·

2

----------·-----·-·- ---------- -	--	,

On 12 August 2015, the applicant was notified by the OVA that their records certify that for the period 10 January 2012 through
17 February 2012 the applicant’s service was honorable and that he is entitled for service-connected disability with a combined evaluation of 20 percent.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

In earlier findings, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant corrective action.  After thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in support of the applicant's appeal· and the evidence of record, we do not believe the applicant has overcome the rationale expressed in our previous decisions.  We took note of the applicant’s contention that his DD Form 214 does not reflect the recent decision of the DVA in which they indicate he was an honorable characterization of service, however, as previously indicated, the DVA operates under a different set of laws.  The DVA is authorized its own separate and independent reviews and determinations as it relates to establishing Veteran’s benefits.  As such, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.  With regard to his remaining requests, the applicant has not provided any evidence to cause us to come to a different conclusion that the two previous Boards decisions that there was no error or injustice with the applicant' s initial entry level separation and the date entered active duty.  In view of· the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to reconsider the applicant’s case.  

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-2012-02471 in Executive Session on 30 January 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair Member
Member

3

- -·----------- --· ------	--

The following documentary evidence was considered concerning ABCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02471:

Exhibit E.

Exhibit F. Exhibit G.

Exhibit H.

Record of Proceedings, dated 21 May 2013, w/atchs.
DD Form 149, dated 10 June 2015, w/atchs. Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated
7 September 2016.
Letter, AFBMCR, dated 28 September 2016.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.

4