RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03199
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His entry level separation be changed to  an  honorable  discharge  and  his
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An Air Force doctor gave him a reentry  clause  that  he  accepted  in  good
faith.  When he was ready to reenter the service he  was  turned  down.   It
was never indicated to him that he would not be  able  to  reenter  the  Air
Force with an Entry Level Separation Discharge.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his DD  Form  214
(Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active   Duty)   and   other
documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 November 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of six years.

According to the applicant’s entry physical  examination  on  28 July  1983,
the applicant denied a history of frequent or severe headaches or  recurrent
back pain.

On 27 November 1983, the applicant reported to  the  dispensary  complaining
of  low  back  pain  which  caused  “migraine”  headaches   from   standing.
Applicant admitted he had occasional severe headaches in high  school  after
setting or standing for a long time.  Orthopedic and  neurological  consults
were ordered to evaluate the condition for EPTS.  He was put  on  a  profile
and medication was ordered.  On 28 November 1983, he was  evaluated  in  the
Orthopedic  Clinic.   The   evaluating   physician’s   impression   of   the
applicant’s condition was recurrent low back pain - myofascial syndrome.

On 6 December 1983, the Medical Board Report indicated  that  the  applicant
did not meet minimum standards for enlistment but met  retention  standards.
He was diagnosed with a recurrent  low  back  pain  and  migraine  headaches
existing prior to service (EPTS).  It was recommended that the applicant  be
discharged by reason of physical disability  which  was  EPTS  and  was  not
aggravated permanently by the service.

On 9 December 1983, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for erroneous  enlistment  under  ATCR
39-6 and AFR 39-10, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-15, dated 1 October 1982.

The commander indicated in her  recommendation  for  discharge  action  that
before recommending this discharge, the applicant was counseled as  required
by AFR 110-1.  She  further  indicated  that  probation  and  rehabilitation
(P&R) were not applicable.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to  consult  legal  counsel
and submit statements in his own behalf; or waive  the  above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

On 9 December 1983, after consulting with counsel, the  applicant  signed  a
statement of intent indicating that he did not request retention in the  Air
Force and waived his right to submit statements  in  his  own  behalf.   The
statement also indicated his separation would be an entry  level  separation
and that he would not be eligible to enlist in the Air Force as long as  the
disqualifying enlistment defect existed.

On 13 December 1983, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s entry-
level separation.

On 15 December  1983,  the  applicant  was  separated  with  an  entry-level
separation in the grade of airman first class, under the provisions  of  AFR
39-10 (Failed to Meet Physical Standards  for  Enlistment).   He  served  21
days of total active service.  He received an RE code of 2C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  recommended  denial.   He  indicated  that  the
applicant was discharged with an entry level separation for failure to  meet
physical standards for enlistment because of existing prior to service  back
pain and headaches that interfered with performance  of  duty  beginning  on
the first day of basic military training.  Airman are in entry-level  status
during the first 180 days of  continuous  active  military  service  and  if
administratively  separated  during  this  period  receive  an   entry-level
separation.  This discharge does not attempt to  characterize  the  type  of
service as either good or bad.  An honorable characterization may  be  given
by the Secretary of the Air Force when it is clearly  warranted  by  unusual
circumstances  of  personal  conduct  and  performance  of  military   duty.
Discharge   for   misconduct   during   entry-level   status   results    in
characterization appropriate to the seriousness of the  misconduct.   Action
and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting  compliance
with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial.   They  indicated  that  based   upon   the
documentation in the file, they believe the discharge  was  consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.
Additionally, the discharge was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial.  They indicated that the  applicant  received
the correct  RE  code  -  2C  “Involuntarily  separated  with  an  honorable
discharge, or entry level separation without characterization of service.”

The evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 4 April 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to  the
applicant 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 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 probable  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  a  change  in  the
characterization  of  the  applicant’s   discharge   or   his   Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) code.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence  of  record,
we are not persuaded that the applicant’s entry-level separation  should  be
changed to an honorable discharge.   In  this  respect,  we  note  that  the
discharge process was initiated prior to the applicant reaching 180 days  of
active duty.  We note that individuals  receive  an  entry-level  separation
with uncharacterized service when the  separation  action  commences  within
the first 180 days of continuous active service.  Given the  fact  that  the
discharge action was initiated approximately 15 days after entry  on  active
duty, it appears that the applicant’s discharge processing  was  appropriate
and in compliance  with  the  governing  regulation.   There  is  no  stigma
attached to an entry-level separation  and  the  separation  should  not  be
viewed as negative.  Also, it is our opinion that  given  the  circumstances
surrounding his separation from the Air Force,  the  RE  code  assigned  was
proper and in compliance with the  appropriate  directives.   Applicant  has
not provided any evidence which would lead  us  to  believe  otherwise.   In
view of the  above  finding,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or an 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 12 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
                 Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member










The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket  BC-2002-
03199 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 September 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                 dated 18 December 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 February 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 March 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 April 2003.



                       THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                       Vice Chair