RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04381 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His narrative reason for separation (Fraudulent Entry into Military Service) and separation code (JDA) be changed. 2. His reentry (RE) code of 2C which denotes (Involuntarily separated with an entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His recruiter told him not to say anything about his migraines because his doctor said they were not severe. The enlistment paperwork used was from a previous time he had gone to the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 22 Jan 08, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of six years. On 15 Apr 08, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. The reason for the proposed action was the applicant intentionally concealed a prior service medical condition, which if revealed, could have rendered him ineligible to enlist. Specifically, it was discovered he had a history of migraine headaches. He acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, waived his right to counsel, and his right to submit statements in his own behalf. The case file was found legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the separation. On 23 Apr 08, the applicant was discharged with an uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of fraudulent entry into military service. Since his enlistment was considered fraudulent, his total active service was non-creditable. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states the applicant’s separation was completed in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. It appears the applicant failed to disclose two conditions both of which would have disqualified him for military service. The records provided reveal during the applicant’s first week of basic military training (BMT) he experienced shortness of breath after a post-exercise and was seen in the emergency room and placed on an inhaler. The applicant disclosed he had been separated from the Navy in 2006, for asthma. He was also prescribed an inhaler in 1996, which was not noted on his 2006 physical, nor disclosed during examination. On 27 Mar 10, he was seen at the Reid Clinic for migraine headaches. He stated he had migraine headaches in the past and used Replax for relief. He noted he had used his mother’s Replax just before leaving for BMT. In addition, he experiences nausea and sensitivity to light with migraines. This history was also not disclosed at the time of examination, and was not included on his medical history form. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the documentation on file in the master personnel records supports the basis for the discharge and the applicant’s entry level separation. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Airmen are given entry-level separation/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. Therefore, his uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The applicant failed to submit any evidence or identify any error or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting a change to his discharge. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of his request to change his RE code. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code (2C) is correct based on his involuntary entry level separation with uncharacterized service. His RE code is not affected by his previous or current medical status. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 6 May 11, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit F). _________________________________________________________________ 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 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 Docket Number BC-2010-04381 in Executive Session on 29 Jun 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2010-04381 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 21 Dec 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 11 Mar 11. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 4 Apr 11. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 11.