RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03485
            INDEX CODE:  100.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to  one  that  would
allow enlistment in the Marines.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE code he received was not advantageous for career advancement in
the military and denies him the opportunity  to  pursue  the  military
career he desires.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  submits  a  DD  Form   214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and five Letters
of Recommendation.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s records show that he enlisted in the Marine  Corps  in
1998 and was discharge on or about 10 July 1998, under the  provisions
of  MCO  P1900.  16C,  paragraph  205  (entry  level  performance  and
conduct), due to incapability, lack of reasonable effort,  failure  to
adapt  to  the  Marine  Corps  environment,  or   minor   disciplinary
infractions.  He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 December  1998
on a Guaranteed Training Enlistment Agreement as a  Tactical  Aircraft
Maintenance Apprentice.  On 27 June 1999, he  experienced  a  seizure,
which was witnessed by a companion.  Subsequently,  he  was  diagnosed
with a tonic seizure disorder.  Just prior to  entering  active  duty,
the applicant was involved in two  motor  vehicle  accidents,  one  of
which resulted in a head injury with brief loss of  consciousness  and
diagnosis of concussion.  On follow-up with neurology at  the  end  of
July, the applicant had been  seizure  free  and  off  of  medication.
However, he remained disqualified from his career field.   On  6  July
1999, he was medically disqualified from working on  the  flight  line
and continued training in his contracted career field.  In  accordance
with his agreement with the Air Force, on 19 July 1999,  he  requested
voluntary  separation  due  to  non-fulfillment  of   the   enlistment
agreement.  On 13 August  1999,  he  was  administratively  discharged
under the provisions of  AFI  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of
Airman, (Defective Enlistment Agreement), with an honorable discharge.
He  was  issued  an   RE   code   of   4M   “Air   Force   breach   of
enlistment/reenlistment agreement”.  He served eight months  and  five
days total active service.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   He  states   the
applicant voluntarily separated  in  accordance  with  his  Guaranteed
Training Enlistment  Agreement  after  medical  disqualification.   He
requests change of his  reenlistment  code  to  something  that  would
enable him to enlist in the Marines.  The reenlistment code on his Air
Force discharge certificate is 4M, accurately  reflecting  “Air  Force
breach of enlistment/reenlistment agreement”.  New  onset  generalized
seizure disorder is usually cause for  referral  into  the  disability
evaluation  system  for  a  determination  of  fitness  for  continued
military service.  Had the applicant been so referred,  it  is  likely
that he would have been found unfit and discharged with severance  pay
(rated 10%).  A disability discharge would result  in  a  reenlistment
code of 2Q barring reenlistment.  Enlisted members may not be retained
on active duty on medical hold  without  their  consent.   Although  a
significant new  diagnosis,  it  was  not  life  or  limb  threatening
warranting retention on medical hold when a voluntary  separation  was
being processed.  The applicant  does  not  indicate  if  he  has  had
subsequent difficulty with seizure disorder or not or whether  he  has
attempted to access veterans benefits.  Action and disposition in this
case are proper and equitable reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.

The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial advising that the RE  code  of  4M,  “Air
Force breach of enlistment/reenlistment agreement,” is correct.  On 13
August 1999,  the  applicant  was  involuntarily  discharged;  with  a
separation code of KDS,  “Defective  Enlistment  Agreement”  with  his
character of service listed as honorable.  Applicant did  not  provide
any evidence disputing the reason he was discharged; therefore,  there
is no evidence presented to support changing the RE code.  Waivers  of
RE codes for enlistment are considered and approved based on the needs
of the respective military service and recruiting initiatives  at  the
time of the enlistment inquiry.

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
21 Nov 03 and 15 Jun 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of  an  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  changing  the
applicant’s reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.  We took notice of the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case,
however; the majority of  the  Board  agrees  with  the  BCMR  Medical
Consultant’s opinions and recommendation and adopts  the  consultant’s
rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in  the  absence
of evidence to the contrary,  the  majority  of  the  Board  finds  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

A majority of the  Board  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2003-
03485 in Executive Session on 10 August 2004, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                 Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

A majority of the Board voted to  deny  the  application.   Ms. Willis
voted to correct the records but elected  not  to  submit  a  minority
report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 May 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Nov 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jun 04.




      JOHN L. ROBUCK
      Panel Chair