RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-03046

xxxxxxxxxxx	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Her “Uncharacterized” Entry Level Separation (ELS) be upgraded to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

She served over 90 days in the military and was discharged for a combination of medical conditions.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force staff sergeant (E-5).

On 12 February 2002, the applicant’s DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment From Officer Candidate – Type Training indicates she was disenrolled from officer candidate training due to a medical disqualification in accordance with AFI 36-2013, Officer Training School (OTS) and Enlisted Commissioning Programs (ECPS), paragraph 4.14.1.6.

Dated 27 February 2002, AF Form 348, Line of Duty Determination, indicates the applicant’s medical condition was found in the line of duty.

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, she was discharged with an “Uncharacterized” ELS after serving three months and seven days of active duty.  She was discharged, with a narrative reason for separation of “Failure to Complete Commissioning or Warrant Program.”

Dated 22 November 2002, the applicant’s Recycle/Disenrollment Recommendation form indicates she was originally medically disenrolled from Officer Training School (OTS) on 12 February 2002 for a foot injury that required surgery and was discharged on 4 March 2002.  Once she had the surgery and recovered, she was reenrolled in OTS on 7 November 2002 and was medically disenrolled for chronic back and shoulder pain on 25 November 2002 and was discharged on 26 November 2002.

Dated 25 November 2002, the applicant’s DD Form 785 indicates she was disenrolled from officer candidate training for having a pre-existing back and shoulder injury.  The applicant’s elimination was due to initial ineligibility in accordance with AFI 36-2013, paragraph 4.14.1.6 and AETCI 36-2002, Recruiting Procedures for the Air Force, paragraph A4.6.17.4 and not meeting the specific medical requirements in AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards.

Issued 26 November 2003, the applicant’s DD Form 214, reflects she received an entry level separation with an uncharacterized character of service after serving 10 days of active duty.  Her narrative reason for separation is “Failure to Complete Commissioning or Warrant Program.”  

Dated 3 May 2021, the applicant’s DD Form 215, Correction to DD For 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, changes blocks 12b, Separation Date This Period from 2003 November 26 to 2002 November 26 and 12c, Net Active Service This Period from 10 days to 20 days of active service.

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

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY 

According to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, incorporating changes through 8 Jun 17, the types of service characterization are as follows: 

Honorable.  The quality of the airman’s service generally has met Air Force standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty or when a member's service is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. 

Under Honorable Conditions (General).  If an airman’s service has been honest and faithful, this characterization is warranted when significant negative aspects of the airman's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the airman's military record.

Under Other than Honorable Conditions.  When basing the reason for separation on a pattern of behavior or one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of airmen.  The member must have an opportunity for a hearing by an administrative discharge board or request discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

Entry Level Separation.  Airmen are in entry level status during the first 180 days of continuous active military service or the first 180 days of continuous active military service after a break of more than 92 days of active service.  Determine the member's status by the date of notification; thus, if the member is in entry level status when initiating the separation action, describe it as an entry level separation unless: 

•	A service characterization of under other than honorable conditions is authorized under the reason for discharge and is warranted by the circumstances of the case; or 

•	The Secretary of the Air Force determines, on a case-by-case basis, that characterization as honorable is clearly warranted by unusual circumstances of personal conduct and performance of military duty.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION
  
The AFBCMR Medical Advisor recommends denying the applicant’s request for a medical discharge finding insufficient evidence to support her claim.  In late November 2002, after her ninth day of Officer Training School (OTS), the applicant signed an exit interview form, which removed her from class 03-03 OTS.  In her request to this Board, she noted serving over 90 days of active service, which is correct according to her first DD 214.  Specifically, the net period of active service from both DD 214’s is 3 months and 17 days for a complete total of 107 days.  Her main issue is specific to the characterization of service.  According to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 1.19.1, “Airmen are in entry level status during the first 180 days of continuous active military service.”  In this case, given the apparent error in the discharge year, the applicant’s 107 days is still well below the 180-day benchmark and thus an “Uncharacterized” ELS is appropriate.   An investigation into the DoD’s electronic medical records systems revealed no Service Treatment Records (STR) or civilian healthcare documents were on file for the applicant.  Her military records contained a paucity of medical documents which included her entry physical examination and historical medical summaries by both a medical provider as well as her commander.  The burden of proof is placed on the applicant to submit evidence to support her request.  The evidence she did submit was assessed to not support her request for a finding of a medical discharge characterization.

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 26 March 2021 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SSR recommends denying the applicant’s request for a medical discharge finding insufficient evidence to support her claim.  The commander provided the base discharge authority ample justification to support separation and the character of service.  The applicant was unable to complete training and as a result, had to be discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Enlisted Separation of Airmen, (Failure to Complete Commissioned/Warrant Officer Program) with an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service characterization.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 4 May 21 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not 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 recommendations of the AFBCMR Medical Advisor and AFPC/DP2SSR and finds 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 of discovering the alleged error or injustice, as required by Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, the Board finds the application untimely and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; 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-2020-03046 in Executive Session on 19 May 21 and 4 June 2021:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 8 July 2020.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Medical Advisor, dated 21 March 2021.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 26 March 2021.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSR, dated 3 May 2021.
Exhibit F:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 4 May 2021.

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.