RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00017 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her discharge be overturned and that she be reinstated into the United States Air Force. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She does not have, nor did she ever have Nutcracker Phenomenon, which she was diagnosed with and subsequently discharged for. Though she scheduled an appointment to review the diagnosis, it was cancelled by her Military Training Instructor (MTI) against her request. When her MTI re-scheduled the appointment, it was cancelled by the physician rendering the diagnosis, who stated it was unnecessary and to proceed with processing her discharge. The physician sent a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) request to her supervisor indicating she had been hostile, argumentative and rude. Her supervisor concluded it was a false claim and dismissed the LOR. On 18 Mar 14, she paid to have a civilian specialist review her diagnosis. The physician conducted a urinalysis, blood work-up, and reviewed the CT scan subsequently disagreeing with the original diagnosis. Her doctor facilitated a follow-up with a Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) specialist to assist with the misdiagnosis. She supplied a letter from her doctor regarding the misdiagnosis to the training support squadron but was advised her discharge paperwork had been signed and would continue. She called the appointments clinic and was told they were advised to not allow any specialty appointments for her because of the previous cancellations, so her appointment at BAMC was cancelled. The physician rendering the original diagnosis executed two other attempts to have her supervisor provide her with LORs both concluding with dismissals after investigation. On 21 Mar 14, she submitted a Congressional Inquiry regarding her discharge. After advising her superiors of her choice, she was instructed to pack her things because she was being discharged. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 17 Dec 13, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 5 Mar 14, she was notified her training squadron commander was recommending she be administratively discharged for defective enlistment per AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section C, Paragraph 5.14. She acknowledged receipt the same day. On 10 Mar 14, she submitted a written statement with a character reference, letter of appreciation and second opinion from a civilian medical specialist. On 18 Mar, her Commander directed discharge in response to her rebuttal request, indicating “She is able to return once her condition is cleared.” On 21 Mar 14, the applicant received an entry-level separation, a narrative reason for separation as “Discharge Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards” and a Reentry Code of 4C. She was credited with three months and five days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends approval indicating the applicant provided a second opinion that stated she does not have the condition. Based on the documentation in the file provided for review, the discharge to include the type of separation, Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation and character of service were appropriately administered and with the discretion of the discharge authority at the time. However, because the applicant provided the second opinion, SGPS feels she should be given the chance to process through Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), have her medical information reviewed and if appropriate, a medical waiver submitted for review. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Medical authorities examined the applicant and diagnosed her with nutcracker phenomenon venous disorder. Considered a disqualifying condition, it was recommended the applicant be administratively discharged. Both the commander and the discharge authority concluded that discharge was in order, therefore, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on her DD Form 214. The applicant’s service characterization is also correct as reflected on her DD Form 214. Airmen are given Entry-level separation/Uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous active service. The Department of Defense 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. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA indicates that the applicant received an erroneous Reenlistment Eligibility (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.” She should have received an RE code of “2C—Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service,” as required by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, Table 5.2 based on her entry-level separation. Members separated with an entry level separation only receive an RE code of 2C, unless later changed to 3K by the AFBCMR. Unless otherwise directed by the Board, DPSOR will provide the applicant a corrected copy of her DD Form 214, with an RE code of 2C. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 Jul 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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 timely filed. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we believe the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the comments of AFPC/DPSOR indicating that relief should be denied because the applicant’s discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority, we believe a preponderance of the evidence substantiates that corrective action is warranted. In this respect, we note the applicant has provided a copy of a second opinion from a civilian medical specialist indicating she does not have the nutcracker phenomenon, contrary to the original diagnosis. We also note the applicant provided a copy of her discharge rebuttal with the handwritten comments from the discharge authority stating “She is able to return after her condition has been cleared.” In view of this, we believe the applicant has provided sufficient evidence of an injustice. This board does not believe reinstatement is an appropriate remedy, but we do agree with the AETC/SGPS opinion she should be given the opportunity, as appropriate, to process through MEPS and have her medical information reviewed. The board believes separation under Secretarial Authority (JFF) and an RE code of 3K is appropriate. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with her 21 Mar 14 discharge, be amended to read “JFF” in block 26, Separation Code; “3K” in block 27, Reentry Code, and “Secretarial Authority,” in block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation. All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00017 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AETC/SG, dated 29 May 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 Jun 15. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPOA, dated 7 Jul 15. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 15.