RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00785

            COUNSEL:  No

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he  may  pursue  a
career in the military.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He enlisted in the Air Force with no complications or set backs or need  for
an appeals due to injury or legal action.  He made note  of  a  slight  back
problem that was on its way to recovery.  He told  his  recruiter  about  it
and he said it was of no consequence, as long as it did not  keep  him  from
performing his duties.  And it  did  not,  however  he  made  an  unofficial
request to have a non-physical job, such as administrative  or  intelligence
(he speaks Farsi and Arabic)  not  something  having  to  due  with  regular
physical strain.  This was made clear to him that it would not be a  problem
and he could choose from a  list  of  such  jobs.   He  went  through  basic
training without a problem and he excelled in his  flight  as  the  Academic
Monitor and Chapel Guide.  He  also  received  his  Marksmanship  ribbon  at
warrior week.

In support of his appeal, he submits  Special  Order  AB-31757,  a  personal
data sheet, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from  Active
Duty and a personal letter.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an  airman  basic  on  17
Jul 01 for a period of 4 years.  He was separated from the Air  Force  on  9
Nov 01 under the provisions of AFI  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of
Airmen (erroneous entry) with  an  uncharacterized  entry-level  separation.
He served  3  months  and  23  days  total  active  service.   However,  the
applicant's military record  does  not  contain  a  notification  letter  or
separation package.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant's military records, are contained in the  letter  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C and D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the weight  of  the  evidence
does not clearly dictate a specific course of  action  at  this  time.   The
narrative reason  for  discharge  of  erroneous  enlistment  does  not  seem
accurate.  The applicant entered active duty 17 Jul 01 and  completed  basic
training  without  difficulty.   During  basic   training,   his   excellent
performance earned him the position of Academic Monitor.   Although  he  had
requested career fields that were not physically demanding, he was  selected
for security forces  training.   In  the  fourth  week  of  security  forces
training he developed mid back pain and shooting pains from  his  finger  to
the back.  He first presented for medical  care  20  Sep  01.   That  clinic
entry states that he had back pain that existed prior to  service  and  that
he had discussed the back pain with his recruiter and the Military  Entrance
Processing Station (MEPS) personnel, and  was  told  if  the  pain  was  not
problematic, to proceed with enlistment.  He received appropriate  treatment
and was placed on limited duty.  Due to ongoing pain,  he  was  referred  to
physical therapy on September 27.  On follow up October 16, he continued  to
experience pain felt to be duty limiting and  was  referred  for  orthopedic
surgery  evaluation.   His  orthopedic  evaluation  on  October   17,   2001
concluded with a diagnosis of "chronic back  pain,  mild  spinal  asymmetry,
and recommended discharge from the Air Force due to  EPTS"  (existing  prior
to service condition).  As a result, entry-level separation  was  initiated.
However, it does not appear that there were any  significant  facts  unknown
to the Air Force at the time of  his  entry  that  would  have  resulted  in
denial of  entry  into  the  Air  Force  and  characterizing  his  entry  as
erroneous appears to be inaccurate.

Although the action and disposition in this case were proper  and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law,  the
outcome may well have been different had his request for  a  less  strenuous
career field been granted.  Were his requests  be  granted  and  he  reenter
active duty  and  experienced  recurrent  back  pain  that  interfered  with
training or duty, the process of  separating  him  from  active  duty  would
occur again.  The expense of accession and training  would  again  be  lost.
Therefore, if the Board  decides  in  the  applicant's  favor,  the  Medical
Consultant recommends that his entry be contingent on orthopedic  evaluation
through the MEPS with the use of the standards of enlistment,  Attachment  3
of AFI 48-123 even though the applicant is within 6 months of separation.

BCMR Medical Consultant complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRSP stated that based on the documentation in the file,  we  believe
the  discharge  was  consistent  with   the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the  discharge  was
within sound discretion of the discharge authority.  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 (DOD) determined if a  member  served  less  than  180
days continuous service, it would be unfair to the member  and  the  service
to characterize their limited service.  The applicant  did  not  submit  any
new evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.

AFPC/DPPRSP complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant separated on 9 Nov 01, after serving  3
months and 23 days active  service.   The  RE  code  of  2C,  "Involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level  separation  without
characterization of service" is correct.

AFPC/DPPAE complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 9 Aug 02, for review and comment 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 injustice.  While the RE code assigned  to  the  applicant,  at
the time was technically correct  and  in  accordance  with  the  applicable
instructions, we believe it would be an injustice for  him  to  continue  to
suffer its effects in the way  of  enlistment  opportunities  in  the  armed
forces.  It appears that his physical ability to progress  in  his  security
police training was affected in part by a medical condition, which  we  note
no longer exists.  We note also that he wishes to pursue  a  career  in  the
military using his Farsi and Arabic language skills  and,  in  view  of  the
totality of the circumstances present in  this  case,  we  believe  that  he
should be given the opportunity to apply for enlistment.  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
any branch of the service.  Therefore, the reason for his separation  should
be changed to Secretarial Authority and his RE code of 2C should be  changed
to  3K,  a  code  that  can  be  waived   for   prior   service   enlistment
consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 9 November 2001, he was  separated
under the provisions of AFR 36-3208, paragraph 1.2  (Secretarial  Authority)
with a separation code of JFF and a reenlistment eligibility  (RE)  code  of
3K.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  Docket  Number  02-00785  in
Executive Session on 31 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member

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


     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 March 2002, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 8 May 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 24 May 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 6 Aug 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 02.




                                  CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                  Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-00785




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that be corrected to show that
on 9 November 2001, he was separated under the provisions of AFR 36-3208,
paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority) with a separation code of JFF and a
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 3K.







  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency