RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00957
INDEX NUMBER: 112.08
XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) be adjusted to
22 Oct 97, the first date he entered active service and that all of his
promotion eligibility dates and dates of rank be adjusted accordingly.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His entry-level separation on 10 Dec 97 was improper and due to a bad
medical diagnosis.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of
senior airman (E-4). His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is
27 Aug 98.
The remaining facts relevant to this application are contained in the
evaluations prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force found
at Exhibits C and D.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s
requests.
The applicant developed signs, symptoms of hepatitis within 3 weeks of
entering active duty, determined to be viral hepatitis A on laboratory
testing. Based on the average incubation of hepatitis A, it was
determined that he likely contracted it before entering active duty.
Conditions that are disqualifying for enlistment and which develop
shortly after entering active duty result in separation. In the
applicant’s case, his acute hepatitis A was disqualifying for
enlistment and he was properly separated from the Air Force. Although
the applicant’s condition was unfitting, it was not compensable and
possibly existed prior to service. Fortunately for the applicant, his
form of viral hepatitis is in most cases self-limited and full recovery
without any residual liver damage is the norm. Six months after
achieving full recovery, he met physical standards for enlistment and
reenlisted.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPRSP recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The
applicant did not identify any errors or injustices that occurred in
the discharge processing. The separation he received was consistent
with the regulation and the time he was out of service does not count
toward any active service time.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on
31 May 02 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response
has not been received.
_______________________________________________________________
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 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. We also note that the applicant had not been previously
given credit for the month and nineteen days of credible service from
his first enlistment. AFPC/DPPAOR was notified and has
administratively corrected the applicant’s record. His TAFMSD and Pay
Date have been changed to 8 July 1998. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
_______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable 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 02-00957 in
Executive Session on 18 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
dated 3 May 02.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 24 May 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 May 02.
ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-01539
The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 21 November 2003 for review and response within 30 days. Furthermore, RE code 4C is a code that can be waived for prior service enlistment consideration, provided he meets all other requirements for enlistment under an existing prior service program. Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02030
On 25 March 2002, the applicant's commander notified him that he was being discharged for mental disorders, specifically a personality disorder. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE indicates that based on the review of his case file, his RE code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01188
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her commander recommended her discharge for failure to meet Air Force weight standards, while the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) recommended her discharge for a medical condition that existed prior to service (depression). The applicant was discharged on 19 Nov 97 and was issued an RE code of “2Q.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00346
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence the applicant was not properly considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a duly constituted selection board, we agree with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing he has...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01422
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant states that an entry level separation does not attempt to characterize the type of service as either good or bad. In order for a member discharged by entry level separation to receive an honorable characterization, there must be unusual circumstantces of personal conduce and performance of military duty that warrants consideration by the Secretary of the Air Force. Therefore,...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant states that an entry level separation does not attempt to characterize the type of service as either good or bad. In order for a member discharged by entry level separation to receive an honorable characterization, there must be unusual circumstantces of personal conduce and performance of military duty that warrants consideration by the Secretary of the Air Force. Therefore,...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02315
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied. HQ AFPC/DPPPR states that the applicant did not provide any documentation to substantiate his claim, and there is no indication in his records that he was deployed in direct support of Operation DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM. The applicant’s DD Form 214 contains the following in Item 18, Remarks, “Served 2 Aug 90 to 25 Jan 95 in Operation DESERT...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. According to AFI 36- 2107, Active Duty Service Commitments, IC 2001-1, paragraph 2.10- 1.2.2, the MPF commander briefs members on Seven-Day option, using the statements for ADSC declination. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01104
On 23 Jul 02, she was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend an entry-level separation (ELS) from the Air Force. She received an RE code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge or ELS without characterization of service). _________________________________________________________________ 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...
The military mental health providers had followed the applicant for several months and were fully aware of his pattern of behavior over a prolonged period of time and were thus able to confidently make the diagnosis of personality disorder. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 21 June 2002, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant for...