RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02724
                 INDEX CODE:  110

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated into the Regular Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He feels that he has been discharged unfairly and  unnecessarily.   He
believes that the things that were explained to him  regarding  sickle
cell trait did not  pertain  to  him.   He  would  have  never  signed
discharge papers if he had known the difference  between  sickle  cell
trait and the disease which are two different things.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a lab report from  his
family physician which indicates “Sickle Cell Trait.”

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  29  July  1998  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

Available records reflect that  while  in  the  first  week  of  basic
training, the applicant was advised that he carried  the  sickle  cell
anemia trait.  He was advised of the findings and offered  the  option
of staying in the military  or  separation.   The  Separations  Branch
indicates that on 5 August 1998, the applicant voluntarily submitted a
request to  separate  for  miscellaneous  reasons.   The  request  was
approved to be effective 12 August 1998.

The applicant was discharged on 13 August 1998 under the provisions of
AFI  36-3208  (Miscellaneous/General  Reasons)  with  an  Entry  Level
Separation and character of service “Uncharacterized.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states that evidence of records shows that
the applicant received proper information about potential problems  he
might face as a carrier of the sickle cell trait as indicated  by  his
signature on the forms used for this purpose.  It is  noted  on  these
forms that there is  a  statement  indicating  election  of  discharge
precludes return to the Air Force, a condition that is  not  supported
by the Medical Standards for Continued Military Service.  While  full-
blown sickle cell disease is associated with anemia, the  trait  (i.e.
single-gene carrier) is  not,  and  therefore  not  disqualifying  for
induction.

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change should be
made  to  the  narrative  reason  for  separation  and  the   original
uncharacterized nature of service must, of necessity, remain,  as  his
voluntary separation within 180 days of induction, by  law,  precludes
any other status.  The applicant should be given  the  opportunity  to
reenlist should he  so  desire,  if  he  is  otherwise  qualified  for
enlistment.  Since having the sickle cell trait is  not  disqualifying
for induction, there appears to be no  need  for  a  waiver  for  this
condition should the applicant wish to reenter the military.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations  Branch,  HQ
AFPC/DPPRS, states that he concurs with the BCMR Medical  Consultant’s
recommendation and also agrees that the applicant should be given  the
opportunity to reenlist.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

The Chief, Skills Management Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAE,  states  that  the
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C  is  correct.   The  type  of
discharge is the reason for the assignment of the RE code.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
18 January 1999 for review and response.  As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations  Branch,  HQ
AFPC/DPPRS, amends their 25 November 1998 evaluation stating that they
concur with the BCMR  Medical  Consultant’s  recommendation  that  the
narrative reason for separation should  remain  as  indicated.   DPPRS
also agrees that the applicant should  be  given  the  opportunity  to
reenlist, however, they do not recommend reinstatement  into  the  Air
Force since he  was  offered  retention  and  elected  to  voluntarily
separate after he had  received  proper  information  about  potential
problems he might face as a carrier of the sickle  cell  trait.   They
recommend the applicant’s request for reinstatement be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
15 February for review and response within 30 days.  As of this  date,
no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice  warranting  partial  relief.
Applicant believes he was discharged unfairly and that the appropriate
medical information was not adequately explained to him;  however,  we
note that he was advised that he carried the sickle cell anemia  trait
and was given the option of remaining on active duty or separating and
he voluntarily chose to separate.  We find insufficient evidence  that
he was improperly counseled regarding his situation.  We do  not  find
persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated  or  that
applicant was not afforded all the rights to which  he  was  entitled.
Considered alone, we conclude  that  the  discharge  proceedings  were
proper and the reenlistment eligibility (RE) was  appropriate  to  the
existing circumstances.  However, consideration of this Board  is  not
limited to the events which precipitated th discharge and  ensuing  RE
code.  We have a Congressional mandate which permits consideration  of
other factors.  In this instance we note that applicant’s condition is
not disqualifying for military service.  As we have previously stated,
while we find insufficient evidence that  applicant  was  miscounseled
regarding  sickle   cell   trait   vice   sickle   cell   disease,   a
misunderstanding about his particular condition cannot be  ruled  out.
In view of this, we believe applicant’s existing RE code  is  somewhat
harsh because it does not allow him to pursue his apparent  desire  to
continue his military career.  Therefore, we believe that he should be
afforded the opportunity to apply for a waiver to enlist in the  armed
services.  Whether or not he is successful will depend on the needs of
the service and our recommendation in no way guarantees that  he  will
be allowed to return to the Air Force or any branch  of  the  service.
In view of the forgoing, we recommend his records be corrected to  the
extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected  to  show  that  the  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code issued  in  conjunction  with  his  Entry  Level
Separation on 13 August 1998, was RE-3K.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 21 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
              Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 Oct 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Nov 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 21 Dec 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Jan 99.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Jan 99.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Feb 99.





                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair


INDEX CODE:  110

AFBCMR 98-02724




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to   , be corrected to show that the reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code issued in conjunction with his Entry Level
Separation on 13 August 1998, was RE-3K.







   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency