RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-03453

	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) code and Reentry (RE) code on her DD Form 214,  Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 6 Aug 80, be amended to accurately reflect the reason for discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The codes are derogatory, inaccurate, and conflict with the type of discharge and narrative reason for separation.  Although her time in the Air Force was limited, her intent was honorable.  Because of an unknown prior condition aggravated by training, she was forced to resign during basic training.  She is proud that she made the choice to serve and disappointed that it did not come to fruition.  Upon review of her DD Form 214, she was disheartened to learn of the inaccurate coding.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force airman basic.  

The applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for erroneous enlistment.  The reasons for the action were as follows:

a.	On 17 Jul 80, the applicant was diagnosed with Spondylolysis with incapacitating low back pain, documented on Standard Form 502, Clinical Record.  The diagnosing physician recommended her for discharge, noting that the condition existed prior to service and her long history of low back pain made her unsuitable for the demands of military service.

b.	On 25 Jul 80, a medical board determined the applicant’s medical condition existed prior to her entrance into the Air Force and recommended discharge by reason of physical disability.

On 5 Aug 80, the discharge authority approved the discharge. 

On 6 Aug 80, the applicant was honorably discharged with SPD code “JFU”, RE code “2P”, and a narrative reason for separation of “Failed to Meet Physical Standards for Enlistment”.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory opinions at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the application.  In accordance with AFR 35-16 Vol I, USAF Reenlistment and Retention Program, dated 15 Feb 79, RE code “2P” is appropriate based on the applicant’s involuntary discharge and the narrative reason for separation.   

The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  Competent medical authorities determined the applicant had a pre-existing condition that interfered with training and her ability to meet the required physical standards for enlistment in the Air Force.  The discharge was consistent with procedural requirements of the governing instruction, and the SPD code is correct as indicated on the DD Form 214.  

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 26 Mar 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not 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.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSM and DP2STM and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery less than three years before the Board’s receipt of the application, the Board does not find the assertion reasonable.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

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-2017-03453 in Executive Session on 19 Jun 18:

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atch, dated 18 Jul 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, w/atchs, dated 1 Feb 18.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 2 Feb 18.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 26 Mar 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.