RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01314
            INDEX CODE:  100.03

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4C (separated  -  failure
to meet physical standards for enlistment…) be changed to an RE3.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She would like the code changed to enable her to enlist in  the  US
Army.

In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a copy of her DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active  Duty,  dated
22 Sep 03.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2  Sep  03,  in  the
grade of airman basic (AB/E-1).

On 16 Sep  03,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant  for  erroneous  enlistment.
The reason for the proposed action was  that  a  medical  narrative
summary found the applicant did not meet minimum medical  standards
to enlist.  The applicant should not have been allowed to enlist in
the Air Force due to migraine headaches.  She did not qualify for a
disability  separation.   The  commander   recommended   that   the
applicant be given an entry-level separation.  On that  same  date,
applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge  notification,  and
waived her right to consult counsel and to submit statements in her
own behalf.  She also acknowledged her understanding of the reasons
for her discharge, and that  she  would  not  be  entitled  to  any
disability, retirement, or severance pay.  On 17 Sep 03, the Chief,
Adverse Actions, found the case file legally sufficient to  support
separation and recommended an entry-level separation.  On that same
date, the discharge authority approved the  entry-level  separation
with service uncharacterized.

The applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation on
22 Sep  03,  by  reason  of  “failed  medical/physical  procurement
standards,” and was issued RE code 4C  (failure  to  meet  physical
standards for enlistment).  She was credited with 21 days of active
duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial of the applicant’s request.   They
found that the discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive   requirements    of    the    discharge    regulation.
Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority.  They also noted  that  airmen  are  given
entry-level  separation/uncharacterized  service   characterization
when separation is initiated in the first 180  days  of  continuous
active service.  The Department of Defense (DOD)  determined  if  a
member served less than 180 days continuous service,  it  would  be
unfair to the member and the service to characterize their  limited
service.  Therefore, her uncharacterized service is correct and  in
accordance with DOD  and  Air  Force  instructions.   They  further
stated that an entry-level  separation  should  not  be  viewed  as
negative or less than honorable and should  not  be  confused  with
other types of separation.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE found that the RE code 4C, “separated  -  failure  to
meet physical standards for enlistment…,” is correct.  Waiver 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.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states the migraine she experienced during  training  was
the first one she had had since she was 15.  She explained  to  the
Air Force physician that she experienced migraines a lot  when  she
was younger, but stopped getting them after that time.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

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.   Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that  the
applicant has been the victim of an error  or  injustice.   At  the
time members are separated from the Air Force, they  are  furnished
an RE code  predicated  upon  the  quality  of  their  service  and
circumstances of their  separation.   Applicant’s  RE  code  of  4C
accurately reflects that she was  separated  for  failure  to  meet
physical standards for enlistment.  After a thorough review of  the
evidence  of  record,  we  believe  that  given  the  circumstances
surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE code issued  was  in
accordance  with  the  governing  instructions.    Based   on   the
foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find
no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend  favorable  action  on   this
application.

4.  Additionally, we note that the applicant’s assigned RE code  of
4C is a code that  can  be  waived  for  prior  service  enlistment
consideration,  provided  she  meets  all  other  requirements  for
enlistment under an existing prior service program,  and  depending
on the needs of the service.

___________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2004-01314 in Executive  Session  on  8  July  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
      Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 May 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 4 Jun 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair