RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05270
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His entry-level separation with an uncharacterized service be 
changed to a regular discharge.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

As a veteran with the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM), he 
should have a regular discharge.

The applicant provides no reason why the Board should consider his 
untimely application.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 Jul 92, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 24 Jul 92, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for erroneous 
enlistment.  The specific reason for the action was that, a 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) found he did not meet minimum 
medical standards to join the Air Force due to having status post-
surgical repair of skull, symptomatic in a training environment.

On 24 Jul 92, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, 
and waived his right to consult with legal counsel or submit 
statements in his own behalf.

On 27 Jul 92, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
discharged with an entry-level separation.

On 28 Jul 92, the applicant received an entry-level separation 
with an uncharacterized character service.  His narrative reason 
for separation is “Failed to meet physical standards for 
enlistment.”

On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded 
to applicant for comment (Exhibit C).  As of this date, no 
response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  Based on the documentation on file in the 
master personnel records, the discharge, to include the type of 
separation, Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative 
reason for separation, and service characterization, was 
appropriately administered and within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.  The medical authorities concluded that the 
applicant had a pre-existing condition that would have precluded 
him from joining the Air Force since this condition did not meet 
minimum enlistment standards.  In accordance with (IAW) Air Force 
Regulation (AFR) 39-10, section 5-13c, this falls under the 
category of erroneous enlistments and therefore, both the 
narrative reason for separation and SPD code are correctly 
reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty.

Airmen are given entry-level separation with uncharacterized 
service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of 
continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DoD) 
determined it would be unfair to the member and the service to 
characterize a member’s limited service when separation is 
initiated within the first 180 days of active service.  Therefore, 
the uncharacterized character of service on the applicant’s DD 
Form 214 is correct and IAW DoD and Air Force instructions.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 21 Mar 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  
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.  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 Air Force office of primary responsibility  
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  In 
the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge 
based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented 
is sufficient to recommend granting relief on that basis.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.


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-2013-05270 in Executive Session on 20 Nov 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                   , Panel Chair
	                   , Member
	                   , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 13.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 14 Feb 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 14.
	Exhibit E.  Post-Service Information Bulletin, undated.