RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05569 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be reversed and he be returned to the Air Force Reserve. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should not have been discharged. A physician’s assistant said that he had flat feet pain that prevented him from completing training; which is false. He did not have foot pain, nor did it keep him from completing training. There were no problems when he reported to Fort Dix, New Jersey for his physical. There were also no problems according to the x-rays taken of his feet at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. He has a note from a doctor stating that he does not have foot pain. It also states that he can perform and put any amount of stress on his feet without limitation. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a note from his physician. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 July 2010. On 23 September 2010, he was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for defective enlistment under basis for erroneous enlistment. Specifically, a medical narrative dated 17 September 2010 found that he should not have been allowed to join the Air Force due to Pes Planus. The applicant acknowledged his commander’s intent, his right to legal counsel, to submit a statement on his behalf and his right to waive the aforementioned rights. The applicant waived his right to counsel and declined to submit a written statement for the commander’s consideration. On 28 September 2010, the commander approved the discharge. He was separated on 30 September 2010 with an entry level separation. His service was uncharacterized. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial. The record reflects the applicant was seen at the Reid clinic on 17 September 20110 for another problem when he stated that he did not want to continue training due to his having foot pain. He was not motivated to continue training. He also reported a history of Pes Planus prior to entering the military. An entry level separation was initiated and the applicant stated that he understood the diagnosis and treatment plan to seek treatment after separation. He did not wish to apply for a medical waiver to remain in the Air Force Reserves. The separation was in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. The complete AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The separation was in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. His condition rendered him unsuitable to continue with his military service. The documentation in the applicant’s master personnel file supports a basis for discharge and his entry level separation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Airmen are given entry level separations and their service uncharacterized when separating within the first 180 continuous days of active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) has determined if a member served less than 180 continuous days of active service and it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, the narrative reason for separation and is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The applicant appears to be succeeding and coping well in his civilian capacity; however, the military environment is unique and the stressors encountered in such an environment may not appear or surface when removed from the military environment. The applicant did not submit evidence or identify an error or injustice that occurred during the discharge processing. The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 March 2013, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 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 are not persuaded by the evidence submitted in his appeal that his discharge should be reversed. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 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. 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-2012-05569 in Executive Session on 24 September 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05569 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Dec 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 27 Dec 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 25 Feb 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Mar 13.