RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2016-04996

	COUNSEL:  NONE

	HEARING:  NO 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST.  Change his reentry (RE) code of “2C” on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, to an RE code which will allow him to reenter service without limitations. 

APPLICANT’S CONTENTION.  While at Basic Training, he was cleared to return to training without limitations by two physicians, but he was not given a chance to get a second opinion of suspected “pre-glaucoma.”  The waiver he had to apply for was not correctly written.  It should have only said he was suspected of pre-glaucoma, but he was coerced into signing it.  Then, he was found to be disqualified.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.  The applicant entered active service on 8 Sep 15.

On 10 Nov 15, the applicant’s commander notified him she was recommending him for discharge for fraudulent entry.  This action was taken because he intentionally concealed a medical condition he had prior to service, which if revealed could have rendered him ineligible to enlist.  Specifically, he had pre-glaucoma and periodic headaches.  

The applicant acknowledged notification of the discharge recommendation, was advised of his right to legal counsel, and to submit statements on his own behalf.  The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed his discharge with an Entry Level Separation (ELS).

On 9 Nov 17, the applicant was discharge with an ELS, with a narrative reason for separation of “Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service,” an “uncharacterized” character of service, and an RE code of 2C--(Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service).  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C, D, and E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  Based on the information provided by the medical authorities, the applicant was medically unqualified to continue in the Air Force and the commander was compelled to initiate discharge action.  The base discharge authority concurred with the recommendation. We found no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the application.  The applicant should not be granted a new RE code as his commander recommended, and he was approved for, involuntary separation.  The applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

SAF/MRBM recommends denying the application.  Despite the fact the applicant has given plausible reasons for failing to disclose pre-glaucoma, headaches, or loss of consciousness on his Military Entry Processing (MEPs) documents, the fact remains these symptoms and findings did occur or were present prior to entering military service and were not reported.  At best, then, his reason for discharge could be changed to the less accusatory Failed Medical Procurement Standards.

The totality of evidence, to include unexplained periodic loss of consciousness, the continued recommendation for periodic ocular examinations to reassess glaucoma suspect for the ensuing 3 to 5 years, and the annual follow-up of a right retinal unspecified neoplasm, would be exceedingly inconsistent with guidelines outlined in DoDI 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, Or Induction in the Military Services.

The Medical Advisor regrettably recommends denial of the applicant’s petition for a change in RE code to allow re-entry to military service.  However, does recommend changing the reason for discharge to Failed Medical Procurement Standards.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 8 Dec 17 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1. The application was timely filed.  

2. The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board. 
 
3. After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.  We note the Medical Consultant recommends changing the applicant’s narrative reason for separation to Failed Medical Procurement Standards.  However, since the applicant did not request the change we find no basis to act on his recommendation. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS: The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION: The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-04996 in Executive Session on 4 Apr 18:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

The panel considered the following concerning:

Exhibit A: Applicant’s application, DD Form 149, dated 1 Sep 16, w/atchs.
Exhibit B: Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 28 Sep 17.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 5 Oct 17.
Exhibit E: Advisory opinion, SAF/MRBM, dated 14 Dec 17.
Exhibit F: Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBR to applicant, dated 8 Dec 17.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings Docket Number BC-2016-04996 required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.