RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03870 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His narrative reason for separation, “Erroneous Entry,” be removed from his records. 2. His service characterization be changed from uncharacterized to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The narrative reason for separation reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Service, is inaccurate. He was not aware of any medical conditions prior to his entry into the Air Force. He was discharged due to a developing a medical condition called ulcerative colitis. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 5 Sep 2006, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force. On 2 Feb 2007, his commander notified him he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman. The reason for this action was he was diagnosed with a condition that existed prior to entering the military and was not permanently aggravated by service. The specific reasons are reflected in the Notification Memorandum, dated 2 Feb 2007, at Exhibit B. On 2 Feb 2007, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and waived his rights to consult with legal counsel or to submit statements. In an undated letter, the Chief, Adverse Actions found the discharge legally sufficient. On 16 Feb 2007, he received an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. The narrative reason for separation was “Erroneous Entry.” He served 5 months and 12 days of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his reentry (RE) code. SGPS states that the separation was done in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. The applicant developed symptoms at approximately the fourth week of basic training. The gastroenterology clinic’s diagnosis found him disqualified for military service. Subsequently he was processed for an entry level separation. He applied for and has received a 10 percent disability rating by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). With his history he does not meet current medical criteria for military duty; SGPS does not support a change to his RE code. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his character of service and narrative reason for separation. DPSOR states that they found no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of his discharge. Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of Defense determined if a member served less than 180 days of continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, his uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The documentation on file in the master personnel records supports the basis for discharge to include the applicant's character of service and narrative reason for separation. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He assumed his discharge was going to be honorable based on the fact that it was for a medical reason and he had no disciplinary actions during his service. The evaluation indicated that his condition of inflammatory bowel disease “did exist prior to service but service member was unaware.” He questions how a disease that a person has no knowledge of can exist and why the DVA would grant him service connected disability for a disease that existed prior to service. He did not request a waiver because he was not offered one. A military doctor told him that ulcerative colitis is an automatic disqualifier, and fighting to stay in was a waste of my time. He is not requesting this change to rejoin the military. He is a licensed peace officer, however, in order to find employment with a police department he requires a good military discharge. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. After a carefully reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we find that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to warrant disturbing the record. While the applicant states that he was never notified that his commander was recommending his discharge for Erroneous Enlistment, the evidence reflects otherwise. In this respect we note that the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 2 Feb 2007, discharge Notification Memorandum wherein his commander stated he would be discharged for “Erroneous Enlistment.” Additionally, his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 16 Feb 2007 separation, acknowledged by the applicant, also reflects “Erroneous Enlistment.” In view of this, we conclude the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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- 2012-03870 in Executive Session on 30 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 1 Oct 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Oct 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Oct 2012. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated. Panel Chair