RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-05266

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reentry (RE) code be changed from RE-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) --(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, to RE-3.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her previous diagnosis of Nodular Hyperplasia which led to her involuntary discharge has been contradicted by a recent MRI.    

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 12 May 15.

On 29 Jul 15, the applicant was furnished an Entry Level Separation (ELS) discharge, with uncharacterized service, and was credited with two months, and eighteen days of active service.  

In accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Airmen are given entry-level separation (ELS)/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of 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. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant, and the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Without the benefit of the applicant’s complete clinical history, the reason for her initial presentation in Jun 15, the duration and frequency of any prior clinical complaints, or examination findings, the applicant now presents the results of a repeat MRI conducted in Nov 15, which was interpreted as “normal” in comparison with an MRI scan conducted in Jul 15; which she believes invalidates as erroneous the findings on her MRI scan conducted in Jul 15.  Noting that there were also suspicious findings on a CT scan of the applicant’s abdomen, prompting the MRI evaluation, which then confirmed presence of an abnormal finding, the Medical Consultant opines the current findings do not invalidate the previous findings; as if to say there was either a misinterpretation of findings or as if the findings were never present in the first place.  However, while the most recent MRI scan failed to identify a liver abnormality, in the context of the isolated elevation of a key liver enzyme, AST, the Medical Consultant finds it in the best interest of the applicant and the Air Force to withhold any recommendation allowing the applicant to re-enlist until declared free of liver disease by a gastroenterologist; or if persistently elevated to determine an alternative cause.  

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the requested relief.  The applicant was discharged for Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards on 29 Jul 15 with an ELS and uncharacterized character of service after serving 2 months and 18 days of service.  She received an erroneous RE code on her DD Form 214 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).  On 28 Jul 15, the 737 TRG/CC approved applicant for an ELS with a basis for discharge of Erroneous Enlistment.  Her correct RE code is 2C--(Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service), as required by AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, based on her ELS with uncharacterized character of service.  

The RE code 2C applies in this case as 2# series RE codes have priority over 1#, 3#, and 4# RE codes if more than one RE code applies.  Unless otherwise directed by the Board, AFPC/DPSOR will provide the applicant a corrected copy of her DD Form 214 with an RE code of 2C.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation(s) was/were forwarded to the applicant on 16 Jun 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  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 injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; and agree with the opinions and recommendations of the BCMR Medical Consultant and AFPC/DPSOA and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an injustice.  We note and agree with AFPC/DPSOA’s recommendation to administratively correct the applicant’s erroneous RE Code 4C to RE Code 2C, “involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.”  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief beyond that rendered administratively.

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-2015-05266 in Executive Session on 15 Dec 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-05266 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical consultant, dated
  2 May 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 18 May 16.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jun 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.