RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03706 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 4C which denotes “Separated for concealment of juvenile records, minority, failure to meet physical standards for enlistment, failure to attain a 9.0 reading grade level as measured by the Air Force Reading Abilities Test (AFRAT), or void enlistments,” be changed to “1A” which denotes “Ineligible to reenlist, but condition was waived,” to allow his reentry into the military. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He met all physical and mental requirements at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). On 2 Jun 08, medical personnel at Lackland AFB diagnosed him with vocal cord disorder without a proper medical examination. The test performed by the Air Force doctor was only a visual examination. The three civilian doctors all used a camera instrument, and then a series of tests were performed to see if he had Vocal Cord Dysfunction (VCD). He is willing to submit to any Air Force medical procedure to prove that he was misdiagnosed with VCD. In support of his request, the applicant provides (summarize attachments sent with the application). The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 20 May 08, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of six years. On 3 Jun 08, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for erroneous enlistment. The reason for the proposed action was his commander received a medical narrative summary, dated 2 Jun 08 that indicated the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist. The applicant should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because of vocal cord disorders. He acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, waived his right to counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf. The case file was found legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the separation. On 5 Jun 08, the applicant was discharged with an uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of failed medical/physical procurement standards. He served on active duty for 16 days. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AETC/SGPS makes no recommendation. SGPS states the applicant’s separation was completed in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. Since it does appear the applicant meets current accession standards they could support his request for a change to his RE code. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA notes the applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects an erroneous RE code and, based on his involuntary separation without characterization of service, the appropriate RE code is “2C.” DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code will be administratively corrected to reflect 2C unless otherwise directed by the Board. If the Board is inclined to change the RE code, the only other option would be 3K – “Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate,” which would still require a waiver from Recruiting Services. DPSOA clarifies SGPS’s position that they could support a change in his RE code by stating that RE code 2C is not driven by a medical condition and SGPS does not have the authority or any valid input as to the correctness or recommended changes to the RE code. They are qualified to recommend the applicant be given an opportunity to be medically screened for reentry into military service based on his current medical status (if otherwise eligible). But a waiver of the RE code 2C from the recruiting services based on the medical community’s recommendation would be more appropriate than to change his RE code to suit the applicant’s desires. As a waiver of the RE code would identify prior circumstances for screening instead of circumventing aspects of his prior service. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 2 Dec 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 E). _________________________________________________________________ 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. Although, the applicant was assigned an incorrect RE code, the administrative correction proposed by AFPC/DPSOA appears to be required based on the circumstances of the applicant’s separation. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFPC/DPSOA and adopt its rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We further note that HQ AETC/SGPS states the applicant’s separation was completed in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-03706 in Executive Session on 8 Mar 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2011-03706 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Jun 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AETC/SGPS, dated 19 Oct 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 14 Nov 12. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 12.