RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01112
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 Oct 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His uncharacterized discharge be changed to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged  from  the  Air  Force  for  a  preexisting  medical
condition.  However, he believes his injuries were caused during basic
training, which he completed.  Since he completed basic  training  and
the training caused his injuries, he requests his discharge be changed
to honorable.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 9 Sep 03.  On  1
Dec 03, his Military Training Flight (MTF) commander notified  him  he
was recommending his  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  erroneous
enlistment.   The  reason  for  the   action   was   the   applicant’s
Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 17 Nov 03, which indicated
a diagnosis of  back  pain  and  Scoliosis.   It  was  determined  the
condition existed prior to service and was not permanently  aggravated
by the applicant’s service.  Had the applicant’s condition been  known
prior to his enlistment, he might not have been allowed entry into the
military.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on 1 Dec 03  and  waived
his right to counsel and waived his right to submit  statements.   The
MTF  commander  recommended  to  the  Training  Group  commander   the
applicant be discharged for the reasons stated above.   The  discharge
case file was reviewed and found to be legally sufficient  to  support
the applicant’s separation.  The Training Group commander approved the
applicant’s discharge with an entry-level separation.   The  applicant
was discharged on  5  Dec  03  with  an  uncharacterized  Entry  Level
Separation and given an RE code of “2C.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Based on the
documentation in the applicant’s personnel  file,  his  discharge  was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge    regulation.      Airmen     are     given     entry-level
separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is
initiated in the  first  180  days  continuous  active  service.   The
applicant’s uncharacterized character of service  is  correct  and  in
accordance with Department of  Defense  and  Air  Force  Instructions.
They also note that the BCMR Medical Consultant prepared an evaluation
of the applicant’s medical condition in a  previous  appeal  from  the
applicant.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant previously prepared an evaluation  of  the
applicant’s medical condition in response to the  applicant’s  request
to change his Reenlistment Eligibility code to allow his reentry  into
the Air Force.

The applicant was administratively discharged for erroneous enlistment
due  to  persistent  back  pain  associated  with   his   pre-existing
scoliosis, which prevented training.  The applicant contends his  back
pain was not related  to  his  scoliosis,  that  x-rays  performed  at
Lackland AFB erroneously measured  a  scoliosis  angle  that  exceeded
military entrance standards and in  contradiction  to  provisions  for
erroneous enlistment, the Air Force knew about his  scoliosis  at  the
time of his enlistment.  The applicant states he is  now  asymptomatic
after physical therapy for muscle imbalance.

The applicant had a history of back pain existing prior to service  he
did not reveal at the time  of  his  enlistment  medical  examination.
Scoliosis of degrees less than the established Air Force standards are
disqualifying when associated with  pain.   The  applicant  accurately
notes the Air Force knew about  his  scoliosis  at  the  time  of  his
enlistment examination; however, the Air Force did not know about  the
history of back pain he later revealed.  It is only speculative as  to
whether or not the Air Force would have granted him a waiver to  enter
had it known of  his  back  pain.   If  a  waiver  had  been  granted,
subsequent administrative  discharge  for  a  pre-existing  back  pain
condition,  which  prevented  fulfillment  of  the  purpose   of   his
enlistment in the Air Force, would have, again, been the end result.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant  indicates  his
disagreement with the facts presented regarding the recommendation for
his  discharge.   He  also  notes  that  his  medical  condition   was
aggravated by his service with the Air Force and  that  his  condition
had been known prior to his  enlistment  and  determined  by  military
medical authorities not to be severe enough to prevent his entry  into
the Air Force.  Regarding his acknowledgement of the  notification  of
his discharge, applicant states that he was pressured and under duress
to sign all documentation without an explanation as  to  what  he  was
signing.  He states had he known he was signing away  his  rights,  he
never would have signed the documents.  He also  states  he  was  told
that as soon as he arrived home and got a second opinion, he would  be
able to reenlist almost immediately, which did  not  turn  out  to  be
true.

The applicant notes that although it is standard procedure for the Air
Force to characterize service less than 180 days  as  uncharacterized,
since he was dismissed for health  related  reasons  he  believes  his
service should be classified as honorable with medical considerations.
 He believes this is so because every person when they enlist signs  a
contract indicating they will be in the same or better condition  than
prior to  service  with  the  military.   Applicant  opines  that  he,
obviously, was not in the same condition as  when  he  enlisted.   His
doctor informed him that his spine  curvature  had  worsened  by  four
degrees since his enlistment in the Air Force.  Applicant states  that
during his time at Basic Military Training (BMT) and during his active
service, he was told not to say anything to anyone about his back.  He
believes there may have been an effort  to  prevent  discovery  of  an
error in his enlistment.  If there were an error, it should have  been
found out far sooner and he should never have been sent to BMT.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale  as
the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant indicates that he
signed the documentation for his discharge under duress  and  without
knowledge of what he was  signing.   However,  he  has  not  provided
sufficient evidence to  show  that  his  discharge  was  not  handled
properly  and  in  accordance  with  established  Air  Force  policy.
Additionally, the advisory prepared by the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant
was key in our determination that the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  We note  the  applicant  failed  to
respond to this advisory both in his previous appeal and the  current
one before the Board.  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-2005-
01112 in Executive Session on 26 May 2005, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Apr 05.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 17 Sep 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Apr 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Apr 05, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair