RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03155

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His uncharacterized entry level separation be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His time in the service was honorable.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 May 14, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of six years.

On 22 Jul 14, the squadron commander notified the applicant of administrative discharge action for erroneous enlistment.  The reason for the proposed action was based on a Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, which indicated the applicant should not have been able to join the Air Force because of ventral septal defect and it was determined the condition did not meet the medical standards to enlist.  The commander recommended an entry level separation.  On that same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, waived his right to consult counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf.  
On 28 Jul 14, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally sufficient to support separation.
On 27 Aug 14, the discharge authority approved the entry level separation.
On 28 Aug 14, the applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation by reason of “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards,” and was issued an 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).  He was credited with 3 months and 9 days of active duty service.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial indicating the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  DP2STM did not find any evidence of any errors or injustices in the discharge processing.   

The applicant reported to the medical authorities with cold symptoms and during the evaluation was thought to have a cardiac murmur.  He was subsequently transferred to medical hold and referred to cardiology for evaluation.  Cardiology evaluated the applicant which revealed Ventricular Septal Defect.  It was determined the applicant would need lifelong antibiotic prophylaxis and a waiver for retention in the Air Force was sent to the Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Surgeon General (SG) for approval.  The AETC/SG decision was to deny a waiver and sustain the disqualification.  Based on the decision, both the commander and the discharge authority concluded that discharge was in order and DP2STM concurs with that decision in this case.  Therefore, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  

DP2STM also notes the applicant’s service characterization is also correct as reflected on his DD Form 214.  Airmen are given Entry-level separation/Uncharacterized service characterization 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/DP2STM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 Feb 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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-2015-03155 in Executive Session on 10 May 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03155 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 15.
	Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 11 Dec 15.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Feb 16.