RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-
02956
INDEX CODE: 100.00;
100.06
COUNSEL: NO
HEARING DESIRED: NONE
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 MARCH 2006
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His narrative reason for separation and Reenlistment Eligibility
(RE) code be changed.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was injured during basic training and has since healed. There
were no injuries prior to the service, nor have there been any
since.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 Jan 95, for a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.
On 22 Feb 95, the squadron commander notified the applicant that
she was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for
Erroneous Enlistment. If approved, his discharge would be
described as an entry-level separation. The reason for the
proposed action was that a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) on 15 Feb
95, found the applicant did not meet medical standards to join the
Air Force due to recurrent, existed prior to service (EPTS), left
shoulder strain. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification on 22 Feb 95, and waived his option to consult legal
counsel and submit statements on his own behalf.
On 23 Feb 95, the discharge authority approved the discharge and
directed that applicant be discharged with an uncharacterized entry-
level separation.
Applicant received an uncharacterized entry level separation on
28 Feb 95, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of failed
medical/physical procurement standards, and was issued an RE Code
of 4C [failure to meet physical standards]. Applicant served 1
month and 3 days of active military service.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, recommends the application be
denied. The applicant was discharged with an entry-level
separation due to existing prior to service (EPTS) left shoulder
strain preventing participation in training associated with a
motorcycle accident prior to entering service. Members discharged
due to medical disqualification receive a reenlistment code that
typically prevents reenlistment without a waiver (usually difficult
to obtain). Although the applicant states his condition has
improved he provides no medical evidence for consideration. Action
and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.
A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 3 Aug 05, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of
the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the
case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the
BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. Applicant’s RE code of 4C can be waived for
prior service enlistment consideration, provided he meets all other
requirements for enlistment and depending on the needs of the
particular service. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
___________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2004-
02956 in Executive Session on 13 September 2005, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Sep 04, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,
dated 1 Aug 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Aug 05.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01850
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 D. HQ AFPC/DPPAE advises the 4C RE code was applied in accordance with governing...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01131
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 26 Apr 95. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00507
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. However, we agree with the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinions and recommendation and adopt the consultant’s rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We further note the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code “4C” is a waiverable code and if he wishes to reenter military service, the respective service may waive the RE code depending upon the...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02555
The PH is awarded for wounds received as a direct result of enemy actions (i.e., gunshot or shrapnel wounds, hand-to-hand combat wounds, forced aircraft bail out injuries, etc.). In addition, it is necessary that the wound have required treatment by medical personnel. In regard to the applicant’s request for award of the PH, the Board notes the evidence of record supports the fact that the injuries he sustained on 21 Dec 66 were the result of an aircraft accident and not a direct result of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04948
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant request to change her separation code. The correct RE code is 2C, which denotes involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service, as required by AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the United States Air Force, chapter 3, based on her entry-level separation with an uncharacterized character of service. AFPC/DPSOY will provide the applicant with a corrected copy...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-03678
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant opines that, if the applicant’s aortic valve is verified as normal based on repeat evaluation, the applicant’s request should be approved. The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that, as a result of the applicant’s enlistment in the grade of airman basic on 22 Sep 99, she would have met the minimum six months time-in-grade (TIG) requirement for promotion to airman (E-2) on 22 Mar 00, and the 10 months TIG requirement for promotion...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01984
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States, a personal statement, and extracts from his military personnel and medical records. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 21 Nov 03...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02139
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 02139 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 10 JANUARY 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Air Force Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Professional Military Education (PME) Graduation Ribbon. In support of his request, the applicant provided his...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03358
He states the physicians who saw the applicant at the time of his headaches felt that his condition was consistent with migraine headaches. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response dated 9 Sep 07, the applicant again refutes the allegations that he entered military service with a preexisting medical condition (migraine headaches). He states...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01570
On 22 Jan 99 he was referred to WHMC for a medical evaluation for symptoms consistent with a bipolar-like illness and personality disorder. Discharge and continued mood stabilizer medication were recommended. Based on the Consultant’s recommendation and the evidence of record, we are not convinced it would be in the best interests of the Air Force or the applicant to allow him to reenlist.