RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03603 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation of “Fraudulent entry into military service” be changed to “General separation.” His Reentry (RE) Code of “2C” which denotes “Involuntary separation honorable discharge or entry level separation without characterization of service” be changed to designate a general separation. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was advised by his recruiter to only disclose medically treated injuries and therefore did not list his right leg quad injury. He injured his right leg quad muscle while performing the weekly run at Basic Military Training (BMT) and was asked if he had injured his leg before enlistment. He advised the doctor that he had injured it about a year and a half prior to his enlistment and was asked to write a letter explaining the situation. He was then given the option to stay in medical hold until his leg was healed so he could be recycled back into training or he could request to go home. He elected to go home since the doctor said it could be two to three months before his leg healed. He was told he could reenlist after 6 months. He did not lie to gain entry into the military and followed orders. The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application as he is applying for employment with law enforcement agencies and this could affect the hiring process. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 18 Apr 02, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 16 May 02, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged. The basis for the recommendation was fraudulent entry In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section 5C, Defective Enlistments, paragraph 5.15. The specific reason for the recommendation was that the applicant intentionally concealed a prior service medical condition. It was discovered the applicant had right partial pectus fomoris rupture and the medical condition could have rendered him ineligible to enlist in the Air Force. The applicant was advised of his right to consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. On 16 May 02, the applicant acknowledged the discharge recommendation and waived his right to consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. On 20 May 02, the assistant staff judge advocate found the recommendation for discharge legally sufficient. On 20 May 02, the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation. On 22 May 02, the applicant received an Entry Level Separation (ELS) with an uncharacterized character of service. His narrative reason for separation is “Fraudulent entry into military service” and his RE code is “2C.” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. 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 was within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOR found no evidence of any errors or injustices in the discharge processing. The applicant’s Chronological Record of Medical Care states that on or about 3 May 02, he reported to the hospital with an injury to his leg while attempting to run during BMT. At the visit, he reported he had injured the same leg in the same area while playing softball approximately one year prior and that it took eight to nine months to heal. He was not treated for the injury prior to coming into military service because he was not covered for insurance. He further stated that he was told by his recruiter to only divulge a history of illnesses or injuries that were seen and treated by a doctor. The report concluded the applicant intentionally failed to disclose the pre-existing condition prior to entering the military and recommended that he be separated. The applicant was only on active duty for one month; therefore, his character of service is correct on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. Airmen are given ELS with uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The 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 uncharacterized character of service is correct and IAW DOD and Air Force instructions. A complete copy of the DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code. The applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice. He is asking for a RE code designated for a general separation but there is no such RE code. Airmen are separated for specific reasons and the RE code is based on numerous variables or factors that lead to the appropriate RE code. His correct RE code is “2C” based on his involuntary discharge and uncharacterized character of service. He served on active duty from 18 Apr to 22 May 02 but was not credited with any active duty service due to being separated under the fraudulent entry guidance. A complete copy of the DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 17 Feb 15 for review and comment 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. 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 the rationale expressed 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-2014-03603 in Executive Session on 13 May 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Sep 14, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR dated 14 Jan 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 Feb 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 15.