RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03960 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her reentry (RE) code "2C" (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without service characterization of service) be changed to “R1” (sic) (First Term Airman selected for reenlistment under the SRP) to allow her to reenter military service. 2. Her last name be changed to reflect “XXXXXX” rather than “XXXXX.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While on active duty she injured her left foot and believes the slow recovery from the injury, personal issues impacted her ability to satisfactorily complete physical training and maintain physical standards. Since her divorce has been finalized, she wants her records to reflect her maiden name. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 Jun 08, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 20 Jan 09, a Notification of Change in Service Member’s official records was initiated changing the applicant’s last name from XXXX to XXXXX due to her getting married. On 18 Sep 09, the applicant was evaluated for an injury to her left foot. She was diagnosed with a crush injury to the left foot without evidence of fractures. She was prescribed rest, elevation and ice for swelling for 72 hours, weight bearing as tolerated with gradual increase in activity. She received a temporary profile for no impact sports, no jumping, no running, in two weeks she could start using the elliptical and/or bicycle. The applicant presented for follow-up in Oct 09 and Dec 09 with complaints of continued pain which resulted in an extension of her profile restrictions. On 23 Dec 09, the applicant reported continued pain in the left foot with some improvement, numbness with pressure and prolonged standing. Her profile was extended for four weeks along with a referral to the Health and Wellness Clinic for an exercise prescription. The applicant was informed she could participate with the elliptical or walk-run. On 15 Apr 10, the applicant underwent x-rays for her continued foot pain. The x-rays revealed no evidence of acute or healing fracture of the foot. On 4 Jun 10, it was noted the applicant continued to experience foot pain as a result of “slowly healing foot trauma.” She was advised to continue range of motion exercise and to use shoe inserts. She was prohibited from “impact involving the left foot” and running over 100 meters until 30 Aug 10. On 7 Jul 10, the applicant participated in a fitness assessment (FA) and attained an unsatisfactory score. Based on the applicant’s fitness score sheet it appears she failed to achieve a minimum passing score of 70. On 5 Oct 10, the applicant participated in an FA and attained an unsatisfactory score. Based on the applicant’s fitness score sheet it appears she failed the run portion of the FA. On 27 Dec 10, the applicant participated in an FA and attained an unsatisfactory score. Based on the applicant’s fitness score sheet it appears she failed the run portion of the FA. The applicant received a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period ending 2 Feb 11 for failing to maintain current fitness standards. The applicant noted in her response to the referral report that she believes she would have passed the run portion of the FA if the climate had been conducive for running outdoors. On 3 Jan 12, the applicant participated in an FA and attained an unsatisfactory score. Based on the applicant’s fitness score sheet it appears she failed the run and sit-ups portions of the FA. The applicant received a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period ending 2 Feb 12 for failing to meet minimum standards on her annual FA. The applicant acknowledged receipt and elected not to provide a response to the referral report. Under the provision of AFI-36-2905_AFGM3, Air Force Guidance Memorandum for AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, unit commanders must initiate (enlisted Airmen) or recommend (officers) administrative discharge after airman has received four unsatisfactory fitness assessments scores in a 24-month period; failed to demonstrate significant improvement (as determined by the commander) despite the reconditioning period; and has been evaluated by a military health care provider to rule out medical conditions precluding the members from achieving a passing score. On 27 Feb 12, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance: failure to meet minimum fitness standards. The specific reason for the discharge action was the applicant failed four physical fitness assessments between 7 Jul 10 and 3 Jan 12, for which she received two letters of reprimand (LOR) and unfavorable information file (UIF). In addition, the applicant received another LOR for failure to go to appointed place of duty, three letters of counseling (LOCs) for failure to go to appointed place of duty and failing an inspection. The recommendation for discharge noted the applicant was evaluated by a military medical provider who determined there were no medical conditions that precluded the applicant from achieving a passing score on her fitness assessments. On 29 Feb 12, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and waived her right to submit a statement. On 6 Mar 12, the legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 6 Mar 12, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The applicant was so discharged on 16 Mar 12 and was credited with 3 years, 9 months and 14 days of total active service. On 25 Sep 13, AFPC/DPSIRP notified the applicant that her request to change her surname was not possible because changes to former service members records are only permitted when there is evidence the data was erroneously recorded by the Air Force. A review of her records revealed she served and was discharged under her married name and there was no evidence that her name was recorded erroneously. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial noting the applicant has not provided any evidence of an error or injustice regarding her RE code. The applicant indicated she requested an early release and was given an early discharge; however, she was involuntarily discharged for unsatisfactory performance due to failing to meet minimum fitness standards. The applicant received the appropriate RE code based on her being involuntarily discharged with service characterized as honorable. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial noting there is no evidence of an error or injustice to warrant a change to the applicant’s RE code. Under the current policy if the applicant had been a current member of the military and failed her FAs it is probable that she may have received at least an temporary exemption from the aerobic portion of testing, and may have been allowed to continue to serve. However, if she was prohibited from taking any one part of the FA for a 12 month period, she would have been considered for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and a possible medical discharge. Based on the applicant’s record, her primary care provider was in a position to recommend exemption from the walk or run portion of the testing. The applicant is requesting an RE code to allow her to reenter military service. Under the Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services, any current deformities, disease, or chronic joint pain of the pelvic region, thigh, lower leg, knee, ankle and or foot that have interfered with function to such a degree as to prevent the individual from following a physically active vocation in civilian life, or that would interfere with walking, running, weight bearing, or the satisfactory completion of training or military duty are disqualifying for military service. However, the instruction does not discuss any exceptions or waivers to this policy. The applicant has been disqualified for continued military service due to fitness failures and had a potentially disqualifying medical condition involving her left foot; both which could result in a 2C RE code. There has been no evidence of a currently normally functioning and asymptomatic left foot in support of changing the applicant's RE code. Additionally, while it is known the Military Department is an important, willing, and respected "employer," there remains the uncertain return on investment, the requirement to meet physical standards, and to endure the rigors of military service; to include assignments under austere operational conditions. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Her enlistment documents should have revealed she enlisted under the name “XXXX.” Her name changed after she got married. Since her divorce has been finalized she wants her all her records to reflect her maiden name. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant changing the applicant’s RE code. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include her rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge process or the assignment of the contested RE code. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe that her discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing directive, or that the RE code issued in conjunction with her discharge was erroneous or inappropriately assigned. The applicant received the appropriate RE code of 2C based on her involuntary discharge. Therefore, in the absence of a preponderance of the evidence to support changing the applicant’s RE code, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 4. Notwithstanding the above, we believe it would be in the interest of justice to change the applicant’s surname to her maiden name. While we note the comments of AFPC/DPSIRP indicating that relief should be denied because the applicant’s records contain no documentation to substantiate a change in her surname prior to the end of her enlistment, we believe a preponderance of the evidence substantiates that corrective action is warranted. In this respect, we note the applicant enlisted in the Air Force under her maiden name, and although her name changed during her enlistment due to marriage, the marriage was short-lived. Further, she was undergoing divorce proceedings prior to being discharged. While the applicant’s divorce was not finalized until after she was discharged, we find it more likely than not that the delay in the applicant’s divorce proceedings was through no fault of her own. Given the unique circumstances of this case, including the shortness of her marriage and the timing of her divorce, we believe justice is best served by granting this portion of her request. Therefore, we recommend correcting her official military record to as indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to reflect that her name, as reflected on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 16 March 2012, be corrected to reflect “XXXX XXXX XXXXX,” rather than “XXXX XXXX XXXXXX.” ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03960 in Executive Session on 31 Jul 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Sep 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 29 Oct 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 25 Mar 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 14. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jun 14, w/atchs. 1