RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00670 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry code (RE) 2Q (approved medical retirement or separation) be changed to allow him to reenter the Armed Services. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told he was separated for failure to precondition and that he would be allowed to rejoin at a later date. He later found out that he was separated due to a disability that existed prior to service. The “disability” was Grade III left tibial stress fracture that definitely did not exist prior to his enlistment. He was in the medical hold squadron for 6 weeks due to his injury. He was okay with them claiming that it was a failure to condition, but now he knows that they claim it was pre-existing and he feels like he was taken advantage of. He was vulnerable and would do whatever it took to go home. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides documentation from his master personnel record. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served from 1 August 2006 through 9 November 2006. A Medical Evaluation Board referred him to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) after he presented to the medical clinic for ankle and calf pain. During week 5 of basic training, he was diagnosed with left tibial stress fracture and stress changes in bilateral feet. The IPEB found him unfit and recommended he be discharged under the provisions of Chapter 61, Title 10, U.S.C. On 6 November 2006, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be separated from the service for physical disability due to a condition that existed prior to service. He received an entry level separation and his service was uncharacterized. His reentry code was listed as 2Q. He was credited with serving 3 months and 5 days of active service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the preponderance of evidence reflects no error or injustice occurred during the disability process. The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA validated the applicant’s disability discharge processing. They also confirmed RE code 2Q is correct per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, based on his disability discharge and noted that his current medical status has no effect on his RE code. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 29 April 2011, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, we find no basis to favorably consider this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC- 2011-00670 in Executive Session on 9 August 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Feb 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 16 Mar 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPB/DPSOA, dated 13 Apr 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Apr 11. Panel Chair