RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01758 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The type of separation he received (entry level separation) be changed. 2. His Reentry (RE) code of 4C which denotes “Concealment of juvenile records; or minority, or failure to meet physical standards; or failure to obtain 9.0 reading grade;” be changed. (Administratively Corrected) ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He does not have the medical condition for which he was discharged. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of a radiology report. The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 Jun 2011, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force. On 6 Sep 2011, his commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman. The reason for this action was he did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist. He should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because he had osteoarthritis of the knee. On 6 Sep 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and waived his rights to consult with legal counsel or to submit statements in his behalf. On 7 Sep 2011, he received an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. The narrative reason for separation was “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards.” He served on active duty for three months and seven days. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states that the applicant did not provide a current orthopedic evaluation noting that the diagnoses made in Basic Military Training (BMT) has resolved or was in error. Therefore the original diagnoses remains valid and the findings unchanged. Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s records, SGPS finds the separation was done in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. On 18 Aug 2011, the applicant was seen at the clinic for knee pain which he states he did not have until he entered BMT. He was diagnosed with osteoarthritis of his knee. He declined that his case be reviewed for an AETC/SGPS waiver to remain in BMT. Subsequently he was processed for an entry level separation. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his narrative reason for separation. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because of his medical condition. Had the Air Force known of this condition at the time of his enlistment, he would not have been allowed entry into the military. The documentation on file in the master personnel records supports the basis for discharge and his entry level service characterization. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction 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 narrative reason for separation is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends his RE code be changed to “2C,” which denotes "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service." The RE code is driven by his entry level separation with an uncharacterized character of service. AFPC/DPSOY will provide the applicant a corrected copy of his DD Form 214 with an RE code of 2C, unless otherwise directed by the Board. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 5 Aug 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibits 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 to warrant changing the type of separation the applicant received. 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, other than the administrative correction to change his RE code to 2C, 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-2013-01758 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 2013, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/SGPS, dated 29 Apr 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 May 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 Jul 2013. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 2013. 2 3