RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03351 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her discharge documents indicate she fraudulently enlisted in the military. She respectfully disagrees with this statement as she did not intentionally lie to her recruiter or to the medical providers at her entrance exam. Her knee injury occurred prior to her entry into the military while she was a freshman in high school. After therapy, she was cleared by her primary care physician. Her recruiter advised her that she should not disclose her condition during her Military Entrance and Processing Station (MEPS) exam. It was never her intention to end her military career in this manner; therefore, it is her desire to have her discharge characterization changed. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who entered active duty on 19 July 2011. On 23 August 2011, the applicant was seen by medical personnel as a result of experiencing left knee pain during basic training. The Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 23 August 2011, indicates she had a history of a dislocated left patella in August 2007, which she did not disclose during her MEPS processing. Due to her condition, which existed prior to service (EPTS, the health care provider non-recommended the applicant for reenlistment. Based upon the physician’s findings, the applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to recommend her for an uncharacterized entry-level separation based on fraudulent entry, under the provisions of Air Force Program Directive 36-32 and Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section 5C, Defective Enlistments, paragraph 5.15 under Basis for Discharge for Fraudulent Enlistment. The applicant acknowledged her commander’s notification, waived her rights to consult counsel and to submit statements in her own behalf. Subsequently, the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge and directed the applicant be processed for an uncharacterized entry-level separation with a narrative reason for separation as “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service” and a Reentry (RE) Code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service). The applicant was released from active duty effective 2 September 2011 in the grade of airman basic (E-1). ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states the applicant’s separation was processed in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. If the Board grants the applicant’s request, once her condition has been corrected, rehabilitation completed, and she has been released to full unrestricted physical activities, she can see her recruiter to reapply to enter the military. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states that had the Air Force known of the applicant’s condition, she would have been rendered ineligible to enlist in the Air Force. Since the recruiter informed the applicant not to disclose her preexisting injury, and the applicant herself agreed to not disclose the same, they concur that fraudulent enlistment was indeed the correct basis for discharge. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. She provides no facts warranting a change to her separation code, reentry code, or her narrative reason for separation. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant’s RE code of “2C” is required based on her entry-level separation and she has not provided any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to her RE code. DPSOA notes that SGPS indicates that once the applicant meets the medical criteria for military duty, they can support a change of RE code. However, the RE code “2C” is not driven by a medical condition and SGPS does not have the authority or any valid input as to the correctness or recommended changes to the RE code. SGPC is qualified to recommend the applicant be given an opportunity to be medically screened for reentry into military service based on her current medical status (if otherwise eligible). Additionally, a waiver of the RE code “2C” from recruiting services, based on the medical community’s recommendation of meeting medical requirements, would be more appropriate than changing the applicant’s RE code. A waiver of the RE code would identify prior circumstances for screening instead of circumventing aspects of her prior service. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 December 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03351 in Executive Session on 8 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Vice Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03351: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jul 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 12 Oct 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 16 Oct 12. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 28 Nov 12. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 12. Vice Chair 4 3