RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02312 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Entry Level Separation (ELS) and Reentry (RE) code be changed to allow reenlistment in the Armed Forces. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unfairly subjected to an ELS due to a medical condition he was cleared for at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). He disclosed the information and was found medically fit. His RE code should be upgraded so he can have a second chance to reenlist. He should not have been separated because he requested a bigger boot size while in Basic Military Training (BMT). His RE code states he did not disclose his bunions and should not have been allowed to enlist. His case was rushed due to sequestration. He was also not provided information to submit an appeal. In support of his request, the applicant provides letters from his doctors and copy of his DD Form 2808, Report of Medical Examination, dated 30 April 2013. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 17 September 2013, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force and on 10 October 2013 was discharged with an ELS, uncharacterized character of service, narrative reason for separation of “Discharge failed medical/physical procurement standards” and RE code “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 or void enlistment.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial. The discharge, to include the type of separation, Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation and character of service was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge. The applicant’s MEPS physical examination on 30 April 2013 reported on the DD Form 2808 that the applicant had “Hallux Valgus, bilaterally, asymptomatic.” This meets DODI 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services, standards for enlistment since the applicant was not symptomatic. However, while in BMT, the applicant endorsed a history of Existed Prior to Service (EPTS) bilateral foot pain due to bunions. He reported he was seen by a civilian primary care manager and was told he would likely need corrective surgery in the future. He did not report this history to MEPS. While in BMT, his bilateral congenital foot deformity (bunion) interfered with him completing training. He had significant foot pain with running, marching and prolonged standing and was unable to complete BMT. He was subsequently medically cleared for separation. On 8 October 2013, the applicant waived his rights to military legal counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf. The medical recommendation at the time was that he could request reenlistment in the future only if the condition is completely resolved through surgery. He stated he understood the diagnoses and treatment plan. Subsequently, he was processed for an ELS. The applicant has not provided any medical information that indicates he has had this condition medically corrected. Due to the rigors of BMT and the fact that his condition previously precluded his successful completion of BMT, SGPS does not recommend him for reenlistment in the Air Force at this time. A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant contends he should not have been discharged because he disclosed his medical condition at MEPS and was cleared. However, per the AETC/SGPS evaluation, the applicant did not disclose he had a history of bilateral foot pain due to bunions for which he was disqualified and discharged. The applicant was discharged for erroneous enlistment on 10 October 2013 with an ELS and uncharacterized character of service after serving 24 days of service. He received an erroneous RE code on his DD Form 214 of “4C.” On 8 October 2013, the 737th Training Group Commander (737 TRG/CC) approved the applicant for an ELS with a basis for discharge of erroneous enlistment. His correct RE code is “2C” which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge, or ELS with uncharacterized character of service.” The RE code “2C” applies in this case as 2# series RE codes have priority over 1#, 3# and 4# if more than one RE code applies. Unless otherwise directed by the Board, AFPC/DPSOR will provide the applicant a corrected copy of his DD Form 214 with an RE code of “2C.” APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 17 November 2015 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 timely filed. 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 OPRs and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, aside from the administrative correction of the applicant’s RE code to “2C,” we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2015-02312 in Executive Session on 10 February 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 May 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 30 July 2015. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 October 2015. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 November 2015.