RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03495 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed from “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service” to Erroneous Enlistment or “Disability Existing at Time of Enlistment.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His entry into the Air Force was not in any way procured by fraud. He has little recollection of it but, early in his childhood he apparently had a period of bed-wetting. His parents told him that this condition had completely resolved by the age of seven. When he reported to the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) to complete his administrative processing for enlistment, he had absolutely no recollection of a later instance of urinary incontinence that occurred during sleep when he was 15 or 16 years old. When he filled out the required paperwork and answered the questions on the forms at MEPS, he did so honestly and to the best of his recollection, knowledge and belief. When he was at Basic Training and had problems he called his parents to discuss what was happening and talk about the examinations he was required to undergo. During that phone conversation, his parents told him about the incident when he was 15 or 16 years old. When he reported his problem to the medical authorities he was questioned about the timing of his incidents prior to his enlistment and responded truthfully, including reporting what his parents told him on the phone as well as the fact that he has had no other incident between that time and the time of his enlistment in the Air Force. With the knowledge gained from his parents and hindsight he agrees that his enlistment without a waiver may have been erroneous, but he had no intent to deceive and did not intentionally do so. In support of his request, the applicant submits his counsel’s brief with attachments. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 March 2009. On 3 April 2009, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section 5C, Defective Enlistments, paragraph 5.15, under Discharge for Fraudulent Entry. The specific reason for this action was: the applicant disclosed a history of enuresis that was not documented on his DD Form 2807-2, Medical Prescreen of Medical History Report. On 3 April 2009, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of his right to consult legal counsel as well as submit a statement to the commander for consideration. The applicant waived his right to consult legal counsel and submit a statement on his behalf. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged with an entry level separation. The applicant was discharged on 8 April 2009, with a narrative reason for separation of “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service” and a Separation Code of “JDA.” ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends approval. The Medical Consultant states, Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment or Induction in the Military Services, lists medical conditions that are disqualifying for service entry. Under the urinary system, a “history of enuresis or incontinence of urine, or the control of it with medication or other treatment past the 15th birthday is disqualifying. Furthermore, when enuresis is the cause for release from military service it is characterized as a disorder not considered a disability. Specifically, under DoD Instruction 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, Enclosure 5, it is listed among certain “conditions, circumstances, and defects of a developmental nature designated by the Secretary of Defense [that] do not constitute a physical disability and are not ratable in the absence of an underlying causative disorder. If there is a causative disorder it will be rated in accordance with other provisions of this Instruction.” The evaluating urologist found no organic basis for the applicant’s enuresis, but did prescribe medication to control the condition. According to the letter from the applicant’s urologist, the applicant reported he had forgotten about the bedwetting until he was later reminded by his parents while he was being evaluated at the Air Force Basic Training. Thus when he reported to complete his MEPS medical documents, he had “absolutely no recollection of a later instance of urinary incontinence that occurred during sleep” when he was 15 years of age. It is on this basis that the applicant and his legal counsel contend that characterizing the applicant’s service entry as fraudulent, or a deliberate failure to disclose, represents an implicit error if not injustice, or both. The Medical Consultant finds it unnecessarily detrimental, e.g., an injustice, to the applicant to send a lifelong message that he fraudulently entered the Air Force for a personal medical issue of this nature, which is likely to affect his future employability or other instances where truthfulness is critical for acceptance; particularly where there is some doubt raised as to whether he was aware of the recurrence at age 15; lending some credence to the statements submitted by his parents, although not sworn or notarized. Thus if there is an error, the Medical Consultant prefers to render reasonable doubt in the applicant’s favor by changing the narrative reason for separation. The Medical Consultant recommends granting the applicant relief, in the interest of justice; by changing the record to reflect the narrative reason for his separation was due to “Erroneous Entry into Military Service” The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation (Exhibit D) was forwarded to the applicant’s counsel on 28 February 2012 for review and comment within 30 days. 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice. After a review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission we believe that relief is warranted. In light of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion and recommendation that the current narrative reason is unnecessarily detrimental for a personal medical issue of this nature and is likely to affect the applicant’s future employability, we are in agreement that it would be in the interest of justice to resolve any doubt in the applicant’s favor. Therefore, in the interest of equity and justice, his records should be corrected as indicated below. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was discharged on 8 April 2009, with a narrative reason for separation of "Erroneous Entry," rather than "Fraudulent Entry," and a separation code of "JFC," rather than "JDA." ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application BC-2011-03495 in Executive Session on 8 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 August 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 February 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRB, dated 28 February 2012.