RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04948 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her 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 a more favorable code which will allow her to reenlist in the Armed Services. 2. Her Separation code of JFW which denotes “failed medical/physical procurement standards” be changed. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was young, confused and has always been in good health. She wanted to complete her military career; however, she did not know what to do to make it happen. She is older, committed and wants the opportunity to pursue her dream of reenlisting in the Armed Services. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and AF Form 618, Medical Board Report. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 6 Mar 96, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 27 Mar 96, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened for the purpose of reviewing an Existed Prior to Service (EPTS) defect. Based on the reviews of the applicant’s medical records, allergy consultation and interview, the MEB recommended she be given an entry-level separation for an EPTS condition of Asthma. In addition, the MEB noted that the applicant should consult her local physician upon return to civilian life for continuous management of her problem. On 1 Apr 96, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-22, Air Force Military Training and AFI 36- 3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The specific reason for the proposed action was a MEB determined the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards and should have not been allowed to join the Air Force due her diagnosis of Asthma. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, waived her right to seek counsel and to submit a statement on her own behalf. The discharge authority approved her entry-level separation. On 4 Apr 96, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with an entry level separation. She served 29 days of total active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant request to change her separation code. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the discharge processing. Airmen are given entry level separation /uncharacterized service 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 of continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, her uncharacterized character of service, is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a reenlistment eligible RE code. The applicant received an erroneous RE code on her DD Form 214 of 4C. The correct RE code is 2C, which denotes “involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service,” as required by AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the United States Air Force, chapter 3, based on her entry-level separation with an uncharacterized character of service. AFPC/DPSOY will provide the applicant with a corrected copy of her DD Form 214 with an RE code of 2C, unless directed otherwise by the Board. The complete DPSOA evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 Feb 14, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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 an error or injustice. 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2013-04948 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04948 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 Jan 14. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 12 Feb 14, w/atch. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 14. 1 2