RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02810 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of “4C” (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, or void enlistments) be changed to a code that would allow him to reenlist. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has been physically capable of fulfilling DoD standards since his discharge. He desires his code be changed to a more favorable RE code. In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, documents extracted from his military personnel records, service medical records, and other documentation. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 March 2008. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208. The specific reason was a medical narrative summary dated 9 May 2008 that found the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist. He should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because he has pes planus. He was advised of his rights in this matter and elected not to consult with counsel and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the assistant staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed an entry level separation. The applicant was discharged on 19 May 2008. He served 1 month and 25 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant received an erroneous RE code on his DD Form 214 of 4C. His correct RE code is 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) as required by AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, chapter 3, based on his entry level separation with uncharacterized character of service. The RE code 2C applies to all entry level separations without characterizations of service regardless of whether the discharge is voluntary or involuntary. RE code 2C is not driven by a medical condition and AETC/SG (medical community) does not have authority or any valid input as to the correctness or recommended changes to the RE code. They are qualified to recommend applicant be given an opportunity to be medically screened or cleared for reentry into military service based on his current or future medical status (if otherwise eligible). As such, a waiver of the RE code 2C from recruiting services based on medical community’s recommendation of meeting medical requirements would be more appropriate than change his RE code. A waiver of the RE code would identify prior circumstances for screening instead of circumventing aspects of his prior 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 DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AETC/SGPS recommends approval. SGPS support a change to allow the applicant to re-physical and be reviewed for a medical waiver. SGPS states 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. Since the condition has reportedly been resolved there is the possibility he could be considered for a new waiver to enlist in the military. He would need a current podiatry evaluation with release to full unrestricted activities, and a new MEPS Physical Evaluation (PE). The SGPS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 6 December 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 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 an error or injustice. The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted, to include the differing opinions of the Air Force evaluators. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by AFPC/DPSOA. We note that AFPC/DPSOA will correct the applicant’s RE Code to 2C to appropriately reflect his entry level separation with uncharacterized service. We agree with this correction. However, with the revised RE code of 2C, and since the condition has reportedly been resolved, there is the possibility he could be considered for a new waiver to enlist in the military. He would need a current podiatry evaluation with a release to full unrestricted activities, and a new MEPS PE. Therefore, relief beyond that already administratively granted is not warranted. 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-02810 in Executive Session on 18 February 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 June 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 23 July 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 13 November 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 December 2013. 3 4 5