AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2022-00081	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 14 January 2016 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Entry Level Service (uncharacterized separation) for Fraudulent Entry.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade to his discharge characterization, a change to the narrative reason, and a change to the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 19 July 2022.  No witnesses were present or testified on the applicant’s behalf. 

The attached examiner’s brief (provided to applicant only), extracted from available service records, contains pertinent data regarding the circumstances and character of the applicant’s military service. 

DISCUSSION:  The DRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the narrative reason for discharge if such changes are warranted.  If applicable, the board can also change the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code.  In reviewing discharges, the board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to determine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  

Through counsel the applicant contended the command made an error in discretion.  He testified that during his MEPS processing he informed his recruiter he was possibly allergic to wool.  The applicant claimed his wool allergy was a self-diagnosis and he was never officially diagnosed by a medical provider for any allergic conditions.  The recruiter advised the applicant he did not have to disclose any condition he was not diagnosed with.  He claimed he did not lie nor misrepresent himself prior to joining the Air Force.  Since his discharge the applicant was seen by an allergist and tested negative for eczema and wool allergens.  He asserted he was misdiagnosed by Air Force medical providers and requested his discharge be upgraded to allow him the opportunity to pursue reentry into the military.

A review of the applicant’s record revealed he was seen in the clinic for a skin condition he contracted while attending technical school.  The medical providers determined the condition was pre-existing to service and the applicant failed to disclose it during the enlistment process.  This medical condition would have rendered him ineligible to enlist in the military.  In his response to the discharge action he claimed he never had any skin issues prior to joining the Air Force, however, he believed he may have been allergic to wool.  The applicant applied for a medical waiver which was denied as it was determined his condition very likely existed prior to service, and the condition did not meet medical waiver criteria for entry into the Air Force.

The DRB concluded there was no evidence in the record the applicant had any knowledge of a skin condition prior to service and that he did not fraudulently fail to disclose any information at MEPS.  The applicant’s post-service diagnosis by an allergist also indicated he did not have eczema and he was likely misdiagnosed by Air Force medical providers.  The DRB determined there was no evidence to substantiate that the applicant had knowledge of or tried to conceal any prior service skin condition.  Therefore the narrative reason and RE Code issued to the applicant was inequitable.  

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to approve the applicant’s request to change the narrative reason to Secretarial Authority and change the reenlistment eligibility code to 3K.  

Additionally, the DRB recognized the applicant’s preference to also upgrade his discharge characterization.  However, in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Airmen are in entry level status during the first 180 days of continuous active military service.  If separated during this time, they normally receive an Entry Level Separation that is not characterized.  Because it is Air Force policy to not characterize this type of separation, the applicant’s request to “upgrade” to Honorable could not be approved.  
 
CONCLUSION:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service, service/medical record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was inequitable.  Therefore, the narrative reason for separation shall change to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code, and the reentry code shall change to 3K.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 1 August 2022.  If desired, the applicant can request a list of the board members and their votes by writing to:  

Air Force Review Boards Agency
Attn: Discharge Review Board
3351 Celmers Lane
Joint Base Andrews, NAF Washington, MD 20762-6602  
Instructions on how to appeal an AFDRB decision can be found at 
https://afrbaportal.azurewebsites.us

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief (Applicant Only)