RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03259 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reentry (RE) code of 4C which denotes “Concealment of Juvenile records; or minority, or failure to meet physical standards; or failure to obtain 9.0 reading grade;” be changed to allow her to reenlist. ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was told that her discharge was based on a food allergy related to shell-fish. However, she was not given an opportunity to see an allergist. After her discharge, allergy tests verified that she did not have an allergy. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; letters from her physician and various other documents related to her request. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Jan 2013, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force. In an undated letter, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The specific reason for this action was she did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist. She should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because she had a systemic allergy to food with anaphylaxis. ? On 3 Mar 2013, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, consulted with legal counsel and submitted statements in her behalf. On 15 Mar 2013, she received an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. The narrative reason for separation is “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards.” She served on active duty for two months and one day. ______________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states that based on the documentation on file in the applicant's records the separation was done in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. The applicant was found to have a food allergy during Basic Military Training. Her case was reviewed for waiver but was denied due to her food allergy history. Her file notes a reaction to sesame seed, tree nuts, shell fish, some vegetables, and fruits. She was prescribed an epi-pen to carry at all times. The file included a 14 Sep 2011 skin test with several positive findings. On 20 May 2013, after her separation she saw an allergist and included his letter noting there was no reaction when she ingested shrimp. Even though there were many positive findings on the 14 Sep 2011 testing, no other food testing was done. She did not disclose her history or skin testing to the Military Entrance Processing Station because she did not feel she had any food allergies. Based on her history she was subsequently processed for an entry level separation. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason for separation. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. However, they recommend the applicant’s RE code be changed to “2C,” which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.” The RE code 2C is required based on the entry level separation with an uncharacterized character of service and the applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to her RE code. AFPC/DPSOY will provide the applicant a corrected copy of her DD Form 214 with an RE code of 2C, unless otherwise directed by the Board. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 14 Nov 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibits 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 to warrant changing the type of separation the applicant received. 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, other than the administrative correction to change the applicant’s RE code to 2C, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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- 2013-03414 in Executive Session on 6 May 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 22 Aug 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 13 Sep 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 31 Oct 2013. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Nov 2013. Panel Chair