RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00025 

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and separation program designator (SPD) code on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 28 Apr 15, be changed so he can reenlist into the military.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During processing at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), he annotated that he did not have asthma and eczema because to the best of his knowledge he did not.  After living in Japan and moving back to the United States as a youth, he experienced shortness of breath not due to asthma but due to the altitude.  His mother attempted to remove the diagnosis from his medical records, but the Primary Care Manager would not.  Because the diagnosis was in the medical record and school physical, he was forced to have an inhaler at the school nurse’s office even though he never used the medication nor had an asthma attack.  He completed all subsequent tests as well as gas chamber training without complications.  Furthermore, the diagnosis of eczema was erroneously placed in his records.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 11 Mar 15.  

The applicant’s DD Form 2807-1, Report of Medical History, dated 17 Sep 14, reflects “No” in answer to question 10h., “Been prescribed or used an inhaler.”

On 10 Apr 15, the applicant was processed for an administrative separation in lieu of a medical evaluation board, based on a discovery during a flight medicine screening exam that he had a history of asthma and eczema before entering service.  

On 21 Apr 15, the applicant submitted a statement explaining he didn’t bring up his asthma because he got cleared for it, thought it wouldn’t be relevant, and never used an inhaler.  Furthermore, he didn’t remember ever having eczema.  

On 22 Apr 15, the applicant’s squadron commander notified the applicant he was being recommended to be discharged for fraudulent entry by concealing prior service medical conditions of asthma and eczema, which could have rendered him ineligible to enlist in the Air Force.  

On 23 Apr 15, the applicant waived his right to submit a statement and his administrative discharge action was found to be legally sufficient. 

On 28 Apr 15, the applicant was furnished an uncharacterized discharge, a “JDA” (fraudulent entry) SPD code, a “2C” RE code, and was credited with 5 months and 23 days of active service.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommend against changing the applicant’s RE code, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant neglected to disclose his history of being diagnosed with disqualifying medical conditions, which constitutes fraudulent entry.  With regard to the suggestion the applicant’s pulmonary function was adversely affected by transition from Japan to New Jersey, Yokota AB is an elevation of 463 feet while McGuire AFB is at an elevation of 131 feet.  Relocating to a lower altitude usually increases pulmonary capacity.  Nevertheless, from a medical standpoint, the applicant has sufficiently supported that he does not presently have the disqualifying conditions; however, there is no way to know with absolute certainty whether or not the conditions will recur.  The applicant’s failure to disclose his conditions, albeit currently not clinically evident, is consistent with the established narrative reason for discharge.  

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

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denying the applicant’s request, but indicates there is evidence of an error as he received an erroneous RE code on his DD Form 214 of “4C.”  His 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 United States Air Force, chapter 5, based on his entry level separation with uncharacterized character of service.  

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

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice in his Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service.  The applicant’s character of service is correct on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  An entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization is given 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, uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.  Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 22 Aug 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice and his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The Board further notes that even though the AFPC/DPSOA advisory states the applicant’s DD Form 214 should be corrected to reflect an RE code of “2C”, the Board found the applicant’s DD Form 214 in his master personnel record accurately reflects “2C”.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2016-00025 in Executive Session on 9 May 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Dec 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
  9 May 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 9 Jun 16.
Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 17 Jun 16.  Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Aug 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.