RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00787 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized entry-level separation be changed to a general (under honorable conditions) or honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Through no fault of his own, he was discharged from the service. All medical history was given to Air Force personnel at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). In support of his request, the applicant provides documents extracted from his military personnel record, service medical record, and a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 September 2002. On 15 October 2002, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, chapter 5, section 5C, and paragraph 5.14. The specific reason was a narrative summary dated 8 October 2002 which found the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist. He should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because of amblyopia. He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date. The applicant waived his right to consult with counsel and elected not to submit statements on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the Chief Adverse Actions, found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. On 16 October 2002, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed an entry-level separation. The applicant was discharged on 21 October 2002. He served 28 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s enlistment were erroneous in nature. However, the oversight was discovered quickly and appropriately addressed with separation action in under 30 days. As a result, his case was processed correctly and coded appropriately. The SGPS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states they concur with AETC/SGPS regarding the applicant’s enlistment being erroneous in nature. The applicant’s disqualifying physical condition does not meet Air Force standards set forth in the regulation AFI 48- 123 and was not permanently aggravated by training beyond the normal progression of the ailment. The applicant’s discharge was appropriately administered IAW the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any error or injustices that occurred in the discharge process, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his discharge. The applicant’s service characterization is correct as reflected on his DD Form 214. Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous active 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 DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 5 February 2010, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record along with the applicant's submission, we find no evidence of an error within his discharge processing and are not persuaded that his entry- level separation should be changed. We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the applicant was denied rights to which he was entitled or that the appropriate standards were not applied in this case. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of either an error or an injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00787 in Executive Session on 11 March 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00787 was considered. Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 March 2009, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 3 June 2009. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 3 January 2010. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 February 2010. Panel Chair