RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05194 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of 4C (Separated for concealment of juvenile records, minority, failure to meet physical standards for enlistment, failure to attain a 9.0 reading grade level as measured by the Air Force Reading Abilities Test, or void enlistments) be changed to a medical discharge with the ability to reenter the air force or any branch of the military. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He had no intentions of leaving the air force. He was a committed trainee with no behavior, or physical issues other than the medical issue that he brought to the attention of the medical staff at Lackland Air Force Base. He was told to go back home, have the medical issue taken care of, and return in six months. It was not until he had spoken with a liaison and received a discharge package that he discovered he had been discharged. He recently became aware that the age requirements for enlisting in the air force have been changed. He is 32 years old with 17 years in the work force and will be completing his Bachelor of Arts degree. Therefore, he can bring his maturity and experience to the air force. He would be honored to complete what he started in 2004 and serve his county. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 23 March 2004. On 9 April 2004, the applicant was notified by his commander of the intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for erroneous enlistment. The specific reason for the action was a determination that he did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist and should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because of pilonidal cyst. On 9 April 2004, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, waived his rights to consult with counsel and to submit a statement in his own behalf. The case was found to be legally sufficient and the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished an Entry-Level Separation. On 14 April 2004, the applicant was furnished an Entry-Level Separation with uncharacterized service, with a narrative reason for separation of “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards,” and an RE code of 4C. He was credited with 22 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibit C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. There is no evidence of an error or an injustice in regard to the applicant’s discharge processing. His discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. In this case, the medical authorities examined the applicant and found that he had a disqualifying physical condition that did not meet Air Force standards and was not permanently aggravated by training beyond the normal progression of the ailment. It was recommended that the applicant be administratively separated and that he follow-up with a civilian provider for surgery after separation. Finally, the medical authorities also mentioned that the applicant could reapply for enlistment after his condition was resolved in accordance with medical regulation. Based on this recommendation, both the commander and the discharge authority concluded that discharge was in order, which was the correct decision in this case. Therefore, the separation program designator (SPD) code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant’s service characterization is also correct. Airmen are given Entry-level separation/Uncharacterized service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, the uncharacterized character of service on his DD Form 214 is correct and in accordance with DoD and air force instructions. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant request for any other RE code besides the RE code 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation with uncharacterized character of service). In accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, the applicant’s RE code should have been 2C based on his entry level separation with uncharacterized character of service. The two series RE codes have priority over the one number series, three number series, and four number series RE codes. Specifically, if more than one RE code applies, the two series will take precedence. Therefore, the RE code 2C applies in this case because it takes priority of the RE code 4C. Furthermore, although the applicant is asking for his RE code 4C to be changed to a medical discharge with the ability to reenter the military, there is nothing in the applicant’s record that supports he was medically discharged. Also, RE codes do not determine the type of discharge; the discharge authority determines the type of discharge. Therefore, unless otherwise directed, the applicant’s will be provided a corrected copy of his DD Form 214 with an RE code of 2C. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. AETC/SGPS recommends denial. Based on the documentation in the file provided for review, the discharge to include the type of separation, SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of service were appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. It was determined the applicant had an existing prior to service (EPTS) condition of a pilonidal cyst. He was diagnosed and seen by a surgeon prior to entry who chose to treat the condition conservatively. In a hand written note the applicant indicates he was told by his recruiter not to disclose this information and in-turn he was cleared for entry. Once in basic military training (BMT) the condition flared up and he decided to go home and have surgery instead of trying to pursue a waiver. The applicant has not provided any information that his condition has been treated or that it has been resolved. A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 1 July 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-05194 in Executive Session on 20 Aug 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 December 2014. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 22 January 2015. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 18 March 2015. Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 29 May 2015. Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 July 2015.