RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01547 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of service be changed from uncharacterized to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, needs to reflect an honorable discharge so he can apply for a personal property tax exemption as a disabled veteran. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) correspondence and a DVA Rating Decision, dated 25 April 2003. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 7 June 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1). On 24 July 2000, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him for discharge for erroneous enlistment under the authority of Air Force Personnel Directive 36-32 and Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section C, Defective Enlistments, paragraph 5.14 under Basis for Erroneous Enlistment. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and waived his rights to consult counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf. The discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged with an entry-level separation. On 4 August 2000, the applicant was released from active duty with an uncharacterized discharge and a narrative reason for separation of “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards.” He served 1 month and 28 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s enlistment was erroneous in nature. The oversight was discovered quickly and appropriately addressed with separation action within 30 days. The applicant’s disqualifying physical condition does not meet Air Force standards set forth in Air Force Instruction 48-123 and was not permanently aggravated by training beyond the normal progression of the ailment. Based on documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing; nor, did he provide any facts warranting a change to his narrative reason for separation. The complete DPSOS 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 19 November 2010, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge process. It appears the applicant’s discharge was consistent with substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and no evidence has been presented to indicate otherwise. While we acknowledge the applicant’s desire to qualify for DVA benefits, we do not find this to be a sufficient basis to change his uncharacterized entry level discharge to an honorable discharge. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2010-01547 in Executive Session on 3 March 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01547: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Apr 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 8 Nov 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Nov 10.