RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-04082

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Her entry-level separation be changed to a medical retirement or a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

In Nov 17, her record with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) changed.  The DVA exam determined that her time in the military aggravated a condition that she was unaware she had.  This changed her discharge characterization to under honorable conditions and she was awarded a 30 percent disability rating in Dec 18.  The record of her discharge does not accurately reflect the findings of the DVA.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 1 Jun 04.

According to Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 30 Jun 04, the applicant was diagnosed with irritable bowel at Basic Military Training School.  The applicant did not request an enlistment waiver to remain in the military.

On 6 Jul 04, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, chapter 5, section 5C, Defective Enlistments, paragraph 5.15 under Basis for Discharge for Fraudulent Entry with an entry-level separation.  The specific reason for this action was the applicant intentionally concealed a prior service medical condition, which if revealed, could have resulted in rejection of her enlistment.  The Air Force discovered the applicant had irritable bowel syndrome, a condition that could have rendered her ineligible to enlist in the Air Force.

On 6 Jul 04, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and waived her right to consult with counsel and to submit statements in her behalf.

On 7 Jul 04, the Chief of Adverse Actions determined the administrative discharge was legally sufficient and recommended the applicant receive an entry-level separation.

On 7 Jul 04, the discharge authority approved the recommendation.

On 9 Jul 04, the applicant received an entry-level separation, with uncharacterized service.  Her narrative reason for separation is “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service” and she was not credited with any active service due to her fraudulent entry.

On 19 Jul 04, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) to have her narrative reason for separation changed.  On 7 Jul 05, the, the majority of the Board determined there was no deliberate deception on the part of the applicant upon her entry into the Air Force.  Therefore, the majority of the Board found the narrative reason for discharge, Fraudulent Entry into Military Service, to be excessively harsh and not representative of the facts.  Accordingly, the majority of the Board recommended that her record be corrected to show that on 9 Jul 04, she was separated with an uncharacterized entry-level separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority) with a separation code of “JFF.”

The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, was corrected to reflect “Secretarial Authority” as the narrative reason for separation and she was credited with  1 month, and 9 days of total active service.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibit C and Exhibit E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  Based on review of the applicant’s request, there is no error or injustice with the discharge processing.  Airmen are in entry level status during the first 180 days of continuous active military service.  The Department of Defense (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.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 10 Sep 19 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The BCMR Medical Advisor finds that the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record.  Operating under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), the Military Department only offers compensation for those service-incurred diseases or injuries which rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present “snapshot” time of final military disposition and not based on future progression of injury or illness or any de novo diagnosis achieved, in this case, made during the course of a decade after leaving military service.  The DVA has since assigned service-connection and compensation for a medical condition that, allegedly, was determined “aggravated” by the applicant’s brief [less than one week] of service, likely based upon the “at least as likely as not” standard of evidence.  However, the fact that she became symptomatic so soon after entering military service, along with her self-report of receiving an evaluation and treatment for symptoms prior to entering military service, medical officials determined that she fraudulently entered military service with a pre-existing medical condition.  The Medical Advisor opines the aforementioned evidence represents “clear and unmistakable” evidence that there was a pre-existing medical condition, regardless of ultimate diagnosis, and that said medical condition was the cause for terminating the applicant’s career.  On the other hand, the applicant is advised that, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.) with a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition for which it establishes a nexus with military service, without regard to its proven or demonstrated impact upon a service member’s fitness to serve, reason for discharge, or the length of time since date of discharge.  This is the reason why an individual can be released from military service for one reason and, yet sometime thereafter, receive compensation ratings from the DVA for medical conditions that were determined service-connected, but were not militarily unfitting or compensable at the time of discharge.  Moreover, the DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease), as the level of impairment from a given service connected medical condition may vary (improve or worsen, affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the veteran.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the additional advisory opinion to the applicant on 29 Oct 19 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

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

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2STM and the BCMR Medical Advisor and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-2019-04082 in Executive Session on 20 May 20:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atch, dated 2 Aug 19 and 26 Aug 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 6 Sep 19.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 10 Sep 19.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated 17 Oct 19.
Exhibit F:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 29 Oct 19.

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