RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02678 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following items on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 29 Apr 11 placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) be changed so that he can reenter the Air Force: a. Item 4b, Pay Grade, changed to “E4” rather than “E3.” b. Item 14, Military Education, “Weapons Control Systems Technician, F-106 S, Dec 06,” be removed. (Administratively Corrected) c. Item 23, Type of Separation, “Retirement,” be changed. d. Item 25, Separation Authority, “AFI 36-3212,” (Physical Evaluation, for Retention, Retirement, and Separation) be changed. e. Item 26, Separation Code of “SFK,” (Disability, Temporary) be changed. f. Item 27, Reentry (RE) Code of “2Q,” (Personnel medically discharged or retired) be changed. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was released as an E4. He never received Weapons Control Systems training. His medical condition has cleared up. His DD Form 214 should be changed so that he can reenter the service. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, issued 29 Apr 11 and his TDRL separation orders. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 Jul 06, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of six years. He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (SrA/E4), having assumed that grade effective and with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 Jan 09. On 8 Feb 10, he was demoted to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C/E3), with an effective date and DOR of 4 Feb 10, for four Fitness Assessment (FA) failures in a 10 month period. In addition, he received his second Letter of Reprimand (LOR). On 8 Apr 10, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) diagnosed the applicant with left hip pain and recommended his case be referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 6 May 10, the squadron commander notified the applicant of administrative discharge action for Unsatisfactory Performance: Failure to Meet Minimum Fitness Standards, specifically, for the following: (1) On or about 19 Mar 09, the applicant received a 68.80 on his FA, which resulted in a “poor” score. (2) On or about 18 Jun 09, he received a 73.50 on his FA, which resulted in a “poor” score. (3) On or about 6 Oct 09, he received a 68.65 on his FA, which resulted in a “poor” score. For this failure, he received a LOR, dated 20 Oct 09. (4) On or about 20 Jan 10, he received a 64.05 on his FA, which resulted in a “poor” score. For this failure, he received a LOR, dated 25 Jan 10, and an Unfavorable Information File {UIF) was established. Additionally, he was administratively demoted from the rank of SrA to the rank of A1C, effective 4 Feb 10. After consulting with counsel and having been advised of his rights, the applicant submitted statements in his own behalf. In the midst of the administrative separation action a dual- action process was initiated and his MEB was forwarded to the IPEB. On 29 Jun 10, the IPEB diagnosed the applicant with chronic low back pain and left hip pain and recommended placement on the TDRL with a compensable disability rating of 40 percent. On 13 Jul 10, the applicant agreed with the decision of the IPEB and his case was referred to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a determination of the appropriate reason for discharge and character of service. On 17 Sep 10 and 6 Oct 10, SAFPC directed the applicant’s name be placed on the TDRL with a compensable disability rating of 40 percent and determined that he had satisfactorily served in the grade of SrA. On 29 Apr 11, the applicant’s name was placed on the TDRL with a compensable disability rating of 40 percent, in the grade of SrA. He was credited with 4 years, 9 months, and 19 days of active service for retirement. On 23 Oct 12, the IPEB recommended removing the applicant’s name from the TDRL and that he be disability separated with severance pay and a compensable disability rating of 20 percent. On 10 Dec 12, the SAFPC directed the applicant’s name be removed from the TDRL and he be disability separated with severance pay and a compensable disability rating of 20 percent. On 30 Dec 12, the applicant’s name was removed from the TDRL and he was disability separated with severance pay and a compensable disability rating of 20 percent. On 18 Apr 14, DPSIT administratively corrected the applicant’s record to reflect on his DD Form 214, issued 29 Apr 11, in Item 14. Military Education, Aerospace Maintenance Apprentice (C-17), Dec 06. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code of 2Q and the narrative reason for separation of disability, temporary, removed from his records. The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process. In addition, DPFD notes that he is requesting to have the separation code and RE code changed on his DD Form 214. The RE code of 2Q is the correct code for a member who was approved for a medical retirement or separation and SFK is the correct separation code for being medically retired. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code. DPSOA states that the applicant's RE code of 2Q is correct per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, chapter 5, based on his disability discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 accurately reflects his RE code at the time of separation. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOE recommend denial of applicant's request to have his rank on the DD Form 214 corrected to reflect SrA as he had been demoted and did not hold that grade at the time of separation/retirement from Regular active duty. The applicant was promoted to SrA effective 1 Jan 09. On 4 Feb 10, he was administratively demoted to the rank of A1C for failing to meet AF Fitness standards four times within a 10- month period. On 6 May 10, the applicant was notified of his commander's decision to administratively discharge him for Unsatisfactory Performance: Failure to Meet Minimum Fitness Standards. His records met an IPEB on 29 Jun 10 for a diagnosis of chronic back and hip pain. Based on the pending administrative discharge, his case was forwarded to the SAFPC for finalization. On 17 Sep 10, the SAFPC directed the applicant be placed on the TDRL in the grade of SrA. This was for retirement and pay purposes only. The DD Form 214 reflects the active duty grade the applicant held at the time of separation/retirement. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 Oct 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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. After a careful review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we note the applicant, in essence, is requesting several changes to his DD Form 214 in order to reenter military service. However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In addition, the applicant requests that Item 25, Separation Authority, on his DD Form 214, be changed; however, he has not provided any evidence showing that the separation authority is in error. Therefore, aside from the administrative corrections to his record, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 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(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-02678 in Executive Session on 25 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 May 13, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 17 Jul 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 19 Aug 13. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 4 Sep 13. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 13. Panel Chair 1 5 6