RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01489
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX                    COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to 3K  (reserved  for  use
by HQ AFPC or AFBCMR when no other reenlistment  eligibility  code  applies)
to enable him to return to the  Air  Force  and  the  narrative  reason  for
separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority.”

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He elected to separate under the option offered those diagnosed with  Sickle
Cell Trait, not because of his Sickle Cell Trait but because of  the  duress
he was under from difficulties he was experiencing  stemming  from  lack  of
proper eye glasses.  He was not properly informed  of  eyewear  requirements
for basic training and harshly treated as a result of his  lack  of  eyewear
and inability to see clearly.

In support of his application, the applicant provided a personal  statement,
copies of his military personnel records,  a  letter  from  the  applicant’s
father  to  the  basic  training  commander,  and  a  statement   from   the
applicant’s  recruiter.    The   applicant’s   complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 March 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the  age
of 17 in the grade of airman (E-2) for a period of four years.  On  6  March
2003, the applicant underwent a routine entry medical  examination  and  was
diagnosed with Sickle Cell Trait.  On 10 March 2003, the applicant signed  a
“Statement of Understanding of Sickle-Cell  Trait  and  Discharge  Options.”
On 12 March 2003, the applicant  signed  an  Air  Force  Form  31,  Airman’s
Request  for  Early  Separation.   The  discharge  authority  approved   the
separation as being in the best interest of the  Air  Force.   On  20  March
2003, the applicant was  discharged  with  an  uncharacterized,  entry-level
separation with a RE code of 2C, involuntarily separated with  an  honorable
discharge or entry-level separation  without  characterization  of  service.
He had served 17 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  is  of  the  opinion  that  no  change  in  the
applicant’s records is warranted.   The  BCMR  Consultant  states  that  the
applicant was diagnosed with Sickle Cell Trait after his  arrival  at  basic
training.  Even though  Sickle  Cell  Trait  is  not  Sickle  Cell  Disease,
individuals with Sickle  Cell  Trait  still  have  abnormal  hemoglobin  and
abnormal red blood  cells  that  may  sickle  in  the  setting  of  vigorous
exercise and dehydration as  well  as  exposure  to  the  lower  atmospheric
pressures experienced during flight.  Complications  that  may  arise  as  a
result can include stroke and death, however this is rare.   Basic  trainees
identified with Sickle Cell Trait, if asymptomatic and without  any  history
of symptoms suggestive of  sickling  are  qualified  for  continued  general
military service; however, they are offered the option  to  either  separate
or remain on active duty after counseling regarding the potential  risks  of
their condition.

The  BCMR  Consultant  states  that  after  the  applicant’s  diagnosis  and
counseling for Sickle Cell Trait, he  elected  to  separate.   However,  the
applicant’s contentions are that he decided to  separate  under  the  Sickle
Cell Trait option, not because of the Sickle Cell  Trait,  but  due  to  the
unfair and discriminatory treatment he received the first week of  training.
 He encountered difficulties when  he  arrived  at  basic  training  without
glasses or a  contact  lens  case  and  began  training  without  corrective
lenses.  He was directed to discard his contact lenses and  received  loaner
glasses from the optometry clinic several days later; however, wearing  them
made him dizzy.

The BCMR Medical Consultant states  that  the  applicant  underwent  medical
prescreening where the  applicant’s  nearsightedness  corrected  by  contact
lenses was identified.  The applicant failed the depth perception test,  but
was medically cleared for entry onto active  duty.   The  medical  prescreen
form reflects a hand-written comment “Bring  contact  case!”   Contact  lens
wear is  not  allowed  during  basic  training.   Typically,  enlistees  are
encouraged  by  their  recruiters  to  bring  glasses  to  basic   training.
However, the applicant reports he did not own glasses and provides a  letter
from his recruiter stating he was not properly briefed on what to  take  and
what not to take to basic training.   The  Optometry  Clinic  serving  basic
trainees has contact lens  cases  and  solution  to  dispense  to  trainees.
Trainees requiring glasses are provided a pair of “loaner  glasses”  on  the
day of their optometry evaluation that adequately correct their  vision  for
participation  in  training.   New  prescription   glasses   are   typically
available to the trainees  within  five  to  six  days.   The  BCMR  Medical
Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE indicates that the reenlistment code 2C was properly accessed  to
the applicant’s record as he was discharged in  accordance  with  Air  Force
directives.  DPPAE is not opposed to using RE code 3K, if the  Board  wishes
to offer relief to the applicant.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS is of the opinion  that  the  discharge
was consistent with the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge  regulation  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  DPPRS states that by signing the “Statement of Understanding  of
Sickle-Cell Trait and Discharge Options” the applicant acknowledged the  Air
Force’s policy on sickle  cell  trait  and  understood,  if  he  elected  to
separate, he would not be allowed back into the Air  Force.   DPPRS  concurs
with the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation and  recommend  no  change  in
the applicant’s records.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was convinced he should use his option  to  separate  under  Sickle  Cell
Trait only after the unjust treatment and discrimination he suffered  during
“hell week” in basic training.  After he returned home  and  talked  to  his
father (a 21-year Air Force veteran) he was told that what had  happened  to
him was wrong and it is not a true indication of the Air  Force.   The  BCMR
Medical Consultant’s advisory indicates that loaner  glasses  are  available
on the day of a  trainee’s  optometry  visit  and  that  exact  prescription
glasses are available within five to six days.  In  his  case,  he  did  not
receive loaner glasses until seven to eight days after training had  started
and was told that his prescription glasses would not be  available  for  two
weeks.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that  the  normal  procedures  in
place for  recruits  presenting  without  glasses  are  adequate  to  enable
participation in training.  He is living proof that this  statement  is  far
from factual.  It would be an honor for him to serve in the  Air  Force  and
he would like to have that opportunity.  He knows that an organization  that
stands for  freedom,  equal  opportunity,  respect,  honor,  integrity,  and
discipline such as the Air Force does not tolerate  what  happened  to  him.
He would appreciate the Board’s support in restoring his  dream  of  joining
the Air Force and serving his  country.   The  applicant’s  rebuttal  is  at
Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an  error  or  injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we  are  not  persuaded  that
his reenlistment code or narrative reason for separation should be  changed.
 The applicant elected to separate from the Air Force of his own  free  will
after he was diagnosed with sickle cell trait.   He  contends  that  he  was
persuaded to elect separation due to  treatment  he  received  during  basic
training cause by his inability to  see.   We  find  no  evidence  that  his
decision to elect separation was coerced in any way or that he  was  treated
any differently than any other individual  in  the  same  situation.   Other
than his own assertions, the applicant provides no persuasive evidence  that
he was unfairly or incorrectly discharged.   We  therefore  agree  with  the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale  expressed  as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden
that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.   Therefore,  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 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 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
            Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
            Mr. David C. VanGasbeck, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2003-01489
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Apr 03.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 Aug 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Nov 03.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Sep 03.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.
      Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 18 Dec 03.




                             BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                             Panel Chair