RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
                                        INDEX CODE 100.06

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01850

                                        COUNSEL: No

                                        HEARING DESIRED: No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed so he can reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He answered medical questions to the best of his knowledge, passed his
physical examinations, and was accepted into the Air Force.  After  he
enlisted, he was told  he  had  a  lazy  eye  and  would  have  to  be
discharged. No one, including himself, noticed the problem. He did not
enlist fraudulently. Surgery in Dec  02  improved  his  condition.  He
would like an RE code that allows reenlistment.

The applicant’s  complete  submission,  including  a  letter  from  an
ophthalmologist, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

A Report of Medical Examination dated 29 Nov 00  found  the  applicant
qualified for  service  but  recommended  he  be  examined  by  a  eye
specialist for glasses. The applicant indicated he  wore  glasses  for
distance. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman
basic on 30 Jan 01.

A 15 Feb 01 medical entry diagnosed esotropia (lazy eye) that  existed
prior to service (EPTS) and  which  disqualified  the  applicant  from
entering the Air Force. The physician reported the applicant had  told
the recruiter he needed glasses but not the processing station,  which
did not notice the problem.

On 5 Mar 01, the applicant was notified he was being  recommended  for
an entry-level separation (ELS) for  erroneous  enlistment.  This  was
based on the 15 Feb 01 diagnosis that found he did  not  meet  minimum
medical standards to enlist. The applicant  acknowledged  his  rights,
the commander  recommended  ELS  for  erroneous  enlistment,  and  the
discharge authority approved the  recommendation  on  5  Mar  01.  The
applicant had not completed basic training.

The applicant was separated on 9 Mar 01 for  failing  medical/physical
procurement standards after one month and ten days of active  service.
He was issued an RE code of 4C (Separated for failure to meet physical
standards for enlistment).

Airmen are given an ELS with uncharacterized service  when  separation
is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active  service.  The
Department of Defense determined if a member served less than 180 days
of continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the
service to characterize the limited service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant  observes  the  applicant  is  now  nine
months post-operative with a satisfactory result bringing  him  within
enlistment standards. Although the discharge was proper, the applicant
may now meet enlistment medical standards and the evidence warrants  a
change of RE code. The Consultant recommends approval but adds that  a
change of RE code by the Board is  not  equivalent  to  a  finding  of
medically qualified for enlistment and does not  guarantee  acceptance
by the Air Force for enlistment.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRSP notes  the  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant’s  opinion  and
defers to the Board to determine if the applicant  should  be  granted
relief.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE advises the 4C RE code was applied  in  accordance  with
governing directives at the time of  discharge,  but  they  would  not
oppose changing the RE code to 3K (Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or  the
AFBCMR when no other RE code applies or is appropriate) if  the  Board
wanted to offer administrative relief.

A complete copy of the 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 Jan 04 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice to  warrant  partial  relief.  The
applicant’s discharge and resultant RE code appear  to  have  been  in
compliance with the circumstances  and  governing  directives  at  the
time. However, based on the recent evidence submitted, we concur  with
the  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant’s  opinion   that   the   applicant’s
corrective  surgery  possibly  enables  him  now  to  meet  enlistment
physical standards. As this would have to be  determined  by  the  Air
Force, we do not believe an RE code  allowing  immediate  reenlistment
would be appropriate. Instead, the waiverable code of  3K  is  fitting
because it would permit him to apply for  enlistment  and,  should  he
have desirable skills  and  be  otherwise  medically  acceptable,  the
Reserves may elect to waive his ineligibility and allow him to enlist.
The applicant  should  understand  this  RE  code  change  in  no  way
obligates any of the Services to accept him for enlistment.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show  that,  in  conjunction
with his entry-level separation on 9  March  2001,  he  was  issued  a
reenlistment eligibility code of 3K, rather than 4C.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 24 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                  Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                  Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2003-01850 was considered:

   Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Aug 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 Sep 03.
   Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 30 Oct 03.
   Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Dec 03.
   Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 04.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR BC-2003-01850




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   , be corrected to show that, in conjunction with
his entry-level separation on 9 March 2001, he was issued a
reenlistment eligibility code of 3K, rather than 4C.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency