RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00730
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE


      632-12-0832      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 SEPTEMBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her separation code of “JFW” and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of
“4C” be changed to allow eligibility to reenlist in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was separated for erroneous enlistment  due  to  an  existing  eye
condition  that  was  not  fully  identified  on   her   in-processing
examination.

She  was  granted  an  injustice  with  the  medical  processing   and
separation from Air Force Basic Military  Training  (BMT);  therefore,
she should be reinstated.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her DD Form
214 and discharge package and additional documents associated with the
issues cited in her contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her enlistment in the Regular Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman first class (E-3) on 25 May 2004 for a period of  four
years.

On 11 June 2004, the applicant  received  notification  that  she  was
being recommended for discharge for erroneous enlistment.  The  reason
for this action was due to receipt of a 9 June 2004 medical  narrative
summary  that  found  the  applicant  did  not  meet  minimum  medical
standards to  enlist.   The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification.  She consulted military legal counsel  and  declined  to
submit a written statement in her own behalf.  The base  legal  office
reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally  sufficient  to   support
separation.  On 14 June 2004, the  discharge  authority  approved  the
recommended entry level separation and directed that the applicant  be
issued an uncharacterized separation.

She received an uncharacterized entry level separation on 15 June 2004
under  the  provisions  of  AFI   36-3208   (failed   medical/physical
procurement standards).  She had completed a total of 22 days and  was
serving in the grade of E-3 at the time of separation.  The  applicant
received a separation (SPD) code of JFW, which defined  means  “Failed
Medical/Physical Procurement Standards” and an RE Code  of  4C,  which
defined  means  "Separated  for  concealment  of   juvenile   records,
minority, failure to meet physical standards for  enlistment,  failure
to attain a 9.0 reading grade level  as  measured  by  the  Air  Force
Reading Abilities Test (AFRAT), or void enlistments."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/SGPS recommends the application be denied.   SGPS  states  the
applicant was cleared for entry into the Air Force by the San  Antonio
Military Entrance Process Station (MEPS).  All those requiring glasses
are reexamined by optometry soon after arriving at BMT.  Review of the
applicant’s  MEPs  examination  reveals  that  in  fact  she  was  not
qualified for entry based on her vision  and  refractive  error.   Her
case  should  have  been  reviewed  by  their  office  for  a  waiver.
Subsequent evaluation by the Ophthalmology  Department  in  June  2004
shows her refractive error to have worsened and she  no  longer  meets
waiverable criteria.  She was also noted to have a condition/diagnoses
of  Pathologic  Myopia,  which  is  also  disqualifying  for  military
service.  The HQ AFPC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states her current diagnosis is myopia and does not  possess
the implications of pathologic myopia.  She  believes  she  can  be  a
great asset to the Air Force.  Her ASVAB scores qualified her for most
jobs, she was element leader during BMT and her PRT scores were in the
top three in her unit.  Applicant’s letter, with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied.  The
BCMR Medicla Consultant advises that medical standards  for  accession
disqualify refractive errors greater than minus 8 but waivers  may  be
granted up to minus 10 diopters when the needs of the  Air  Force  are
served by accessing the individual.  Authority  for  granting  waivers
rests solely with Headquarters  Air  Education  and  Training  Command
Medical Standards and  her  case  was  properly  reviewed  and  waiver
denied.   The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  states  the  waiver   review
authority applied the long established standards in a  consistent  and
fair manner to the applicant.  The BCMR Medical Consultant  evaluation
is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On  15  December  2005,  a  copy  of  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant’s
evaluation was sent to the applicant for review and  comment.   As  of
this date, this office has not received a 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 warranting a change to  her  RE
and Separation codes.  After a thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of
record and the applicant’s submission, it is our  opinion  that  given
the circumstances surrounding her separation from the Air  Force,  the
RE and separation codes assigned were proper and  in  compliance  with
the appropriate  directives.   The  applicant  has  not  provided  any
evidence which would lead us  to  believe  otherwise.   Therefore,  we
agree with the Air Force offices of primary responsibility  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an  error  or  injustice.  In  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find  no  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 20 September 2005 and 23 January 2006, under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
            Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
            Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-00730:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Feb 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 8 Aug 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Aug 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Sep 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultatnt, dated 8 Dec 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Dec 05.






                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair