RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-03143

  	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His separation code of JDA which denotes “Fraudulent Entry into military service be changed to JFV which denotes “Erroneous Enlistment.”

His reenlistment (RE) code of 2C which denotes “Involuntarily Separated with an Honorable Discharge; or Entry Level Separation without Characterization of Service” be changed to RE code 1 which denotes “Eligible for immediate reenlistment or prior service enlistment, provided otherwise eligible.” 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not aware of his condition and is resentful of the fact that he was labeled a fraud and a liar.  He answered the questions to the best of his knowledge because he had never been told that he had eczema.  He understands that it is in his medical history; however, doctors, dermatologists, and his parents told him, that he merely had “dry skin,” which is common with physically active youths.  While going through the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), he was guided by his recruiters and he filled out the form.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 28 Dec 15, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 21 Jun 16, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to discharge him with an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service characterization.   The commander indicated that he received a report from the medical authorities conducting a review of his medical records that disclosed an extensive history and treatment of eczema.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf.  After a legal review, it was found legally sufficient to support separation.  The base discharge authority approved the separation and directed the uncharacterized service characterization.   

On 1 Jul 16, the applicant was discharged with a narrative reason for separation of Fraudulent Entry into Military Service and a RE Code of 2C.  He served 6 months and 4 days on active duty.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  The commander received a medical report from the medical authorities who were conducting a medical screening on the applicant for an overseas assignment.  The report indicated that the applicant had a history of the condition as far back as 2006.  In 2010, 2011, and 2014, a physical noted that he needed to be prescribed fluocinonide cream; he was evaluated again and given the diagnosis of eczema; his eczema was also addressed and he was given mineral oil/petroleum and referred to Dermatology, respectively.  The medical report also indicated that a review of his DD Form 2807-2, Medical Prescreen, revealed that he did not reveal his condition prior to entering the service.  MEPS may not have cleared him and the Air Force may not have allowed him to enlist had they known of this condition.  The commander had been provided sufficient evidence to make a discharge recommendation to the discharge authority for fraudulent enlistment and the discharge authority approved the separation.  The SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the applicant’s request to change his 2C RE code as it is correct based on applicant’s entry-level separation with an uncharacterized character of service.  He states he was not aware of his medical condition and did not commit fraud; however, he does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 27 Mar 18 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 13 Apr 18.  In his response, he reiterates his original contentions.  He believes there is an injustice because he answered the questions to the best of his knowledge.  He did not know he had eczema and while no one can prove what he knew or did not know, he is frustrated that the consensus went in favor of what people presumed he should have known.  He filled out the Prequalification Sheet and his dad wrote what he knew about his medical issues relative to the questions.  Clearly written is the fact that he had dry skin for which he received prescription lotions and ointments. When the recruiter reviewed the sheet, she said the doctor at MEPS would address these issues.  When he was filling out his medical history, he asked about acne since it was listed as one of the skin conditions.  The recruiter indicated that normal teenage acne did not count, only needs to be checked if severe.  He answered the questions truthfully from the best of my knowledge.

He notes the advisory opinions seem focused on procedure, and presumes that if any diagnosis is in a record then the individual must therefore know it exists.  He never denied going to a doctor or getting prescription lotions - in fact, it is on his preselection sheet as noted.  Regarding procedure, it is clear the commander was within his authority based on the forms and the information presented to him.  However, he has a concern regarding his visit with the Area Defense Counsel (ADC) and the letter they helped him write to his commander, which he submits with his application.  He never received acknowledgment that the commander received the letter and when he asked the secretary she simply said, “Don't worry, you are going home no matter what.” In addition, during his wait to see if it was going to get a chance to see the commander, he was called to get his stuff together and prepare to leave.  He still believes his commander never got his letter.   The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.   After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  While the applicant’s assertions are duly noted; the Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2STM and DP2SSM and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.   Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-03143 in Executive Session on 30 May 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 1 Jan 18.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPSTM, dated 16 Feb 18.
Exhibit D:  Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPSSM, dated 22 Feb 28.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 27 Mar 18.
Exhibit F:	Applicant’s response, dated 13 Apr 18

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.