RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-00688
            INDEX CODE 107.00  110.02
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214 reflect receipt of the National Defense Service  Medal
(NDSM) and the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) and  an  honorable
discharge, rather than an entry-level separation.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was awarded the NDSM but it was not included in his  DD  Form  214.
Everyone was awarded the NDSM during wartime in  basic  training.  The
erroneous enlistment was not his fault. The Air Force accepted him and
he should receive an honorable discharge.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.


_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to an National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 submitted  by  the
applicant in his rebuttal (Exhibit F), he enlisted in the Arizona  Air
National Guard (AZ ANG) on 17 Feb 02. After 4 months and  25  days  of
service, he was conditionally released on 11 Dec 02 in  the  grade  of
airman first class, presumably to enlist in the Regular Air Force. The
NGB Form 22 further indicates  he  received  the  NDSM.  Also  in  his
rebuttal (Exhibit F), the applicant provided  a  copy  of  a  Military
Personnel Flight (MPF) Individual Actions printout from  the  HQ  AFPC
Personal Info website. The form indicates the applicant  received  the
NDSM and the AFGCM. The AFGCM is not reflected on the NGB Form 22.

However, these award entries are questionable as they are contrary  to
the eligibility criteria stipulated by Department  of  Defense  Manual
(DODM) 1348.33 and Air Force Instruction (AFI)  36-2803  (Extracts  at
Tab 1). Briefly, the NDSM is awarded for honorable service  on  active
duty, other than  training,  for  specified  periods,  and  the  AFGCM
requires  three  years  of  honorable  service  on  active  duty.   HQ
AFPC/DPPPR informally advised the AFBCMR Staff  that  they  could  not
explain why the NGB entered these  two  awards  into  the  applicant’s
military personnel data system records since he is  not  eligible  for
them.

The applicant, then age 27, enlisted for six years in the Regular  Air
Force on 12 Dec 02 as an airman basic and  was  assigned  to  Lackland
AFB, TX for basic military training (BMT).

Apparently within a few days after beginning BMT, he was seen  in  the
emergency room by Surgery for a condition  that  was  diagnosed  as  a
pilonidal cyst (a hairy cyst in the gluteal cleft adjacent to the anus
which can become infected  with  complications  requiring  significant
surgical  treatment  and  prolonged  convalescence).   There   is   no
information as  to  what  led  to  this  discovery  as  the  applicant
apparently  was  asymptomatic  and  unaware  he  had  the   condition.
According  to  the  brief  medical  narrative,  the  condition  was  a
disqualifying condition, existed prior to service (EPTS), and was  not
aggravated by training beyond the normal progression of  the  ailment.
Administrative  separation  was  recommended  as  well  as  follow-up,
including  surgical  intervention,  with  a  civilian  provider  after
separation. The summary also indicated the applicant could reapply for
enlistment after the condition was resolved.

On 26 Dec 02, the commander notified the applicant of  his  intent  to
recommend entry-level separation for erroneous enlistment based on the
discovery of the pilonidal cyst. The commander indicated the applicant
did not meet minimum  medical  standards  and  should  not  have  been
allowed to enlist.  The applicant acknowledged receipt, whereupon  the
commander  recommended  the  applicant’s  entry-level  separation  for
defective enlistment. After consulting  with  counsel,  the  applicant
waived his right to submit statements and acknowledged  his  discharge
would not entitle him to any disability, retirement or severance  pay.
The case was found legally sufficient on 14 Jan 03, and the  discharge
authority approved the discharge on 15 Jan 03.

After one month and six days of  active  service,  the  applicant  was
discharged on 17 Jan 03 in the grade of airman with an uncharacterized
entry-level  separation  for  failing   medical/physical   procurement
standards. The DD Form 214 reflects “None” in Block 13 for decorations
awarded or authorized.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR indicates the applicant was on active duty for a  period
of one month  and  17  [sic]  days.  [Note:  This  is  incorrect;  the
applicant was on active duty for one month and six days.] The NDSM  is
awarded for honorable  service  during  specified  periods.  Since  he
received an entry-level separation, with uncharacterized  service,  he
is not eligible for or entitled to the NDSM.  Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS notes that had the Air Force known  of  the  applicant’s
EPTS pilonidal cyst, he would not have  been  allowed  to  enlist.  An
erroneous enlistment is one  that  would  not  have  occurred  if  the
service had known about the applicant’s condition prior to  enlistment
and the applicant did not intentionally conceal the  condition.  Based
on the file’s documentation, they believe the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation. Airmen are  given  entry-level  separation/uncharacterized
service when  separation  is  initiated  in  the  first  180  days  of
continuous active service. The DOD determined if a member served  less
than 180 days continuous active service, it would  be  unfair  to  the
member and the service  to  characterize  this  limited  service.  His
uncharacterized service is correct and in  accordance  with  governing
directives and should not be viewed as negative or confused with other
types of separation. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided copies of an NGB Form 22 he received  from  the
AZ ANG and of  his  personal  decorations  information  from  the  MPF
website. He believes these documents entitle him to the NDSM  and  the
AFGCM and this should be reflected on his DD Form 214. He believes  if
the ANG can issue an honorable discharge, he should receive  one  from
the Regular Air Force. He was discharged and/or enlisted in error  and
through no fault of his own. His service was limited but honorable.

A complete copy of  applicant’s  response,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his DD Form 214  should  be  amended.  The  applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these  assertions,
in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override   the
rationale provided by the Air Force or the award criteria  established
by DOD and Air Force governing directives. We  cannot  understand  why
the documents the applicant provides appear to indicate he was awarded
the NDSM and the AFGCM as he clearly is not  eligible  for  either  of
them. As for his entry-level discharge, uncharacterized separations of
such  limited  active  duty  service  as  his  should  not  be  viewed
negatively or confused with other types of separations. The  applicant
has not substantiated his claim that his DD  Form  214  is  incorrect.
Therefore, we adopt the rationale expressed by the Air  Force  as  the
basis for our decision that the  applicant  has  suffered  neither  an
error nor an injustice. In view of the  above  and  absent  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we conclude this appeal should be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

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  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 relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00688 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Feb 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 28 Mar 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Apr 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Apr 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Apr 03, w/atchs.





                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair