RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01533
INDEX CODE: 100.03
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 NOVEMBER 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her narrative reason for separation, "Erroneous Enlistment", be
changed to a medical discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Applicant makes no contentions.
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided DD Form 2648,
Preseparation Counseling Checklist for Active Component Service
Members, and DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 December 2004 for
a period of four years.
On 15 February 2006, applicant's commander notified her that he was
recommending discharge from the Air Force for erroneous enlistment.
The basis for the commander's recommendation was applicant's
Chronological Record of Medical Care Form, which stated that applicant
was diagnosed with shoulder pain/weakness. Applicant was required to
lift 70 pounds over her head to qualify for security forces and was
unable to lift more than 15 pounds. Her inability to meet this
physical requirement prevented her from completing technical training.
This condition existed prior to entry into the service and has not
been permanently aggravated by service. Had the Air Force known of
this condition prior to entry into the military, she would not have
been allowed entry into the military.
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and
waived her rights to consult with legal counsel and submit statements
in her own behalf. The base legal office reviewed the case, found it
legally sufficient to support separation, and recommended an honorable
discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The authority approved
the separation and directed that applicant be discharged with an
honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. Applicant
served on active duty for a period of 1 year, 3 months and 2 days.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that based upon the
documentation on file in the available personnel records, the
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation. The discharge was within
the discretion of the discharge authority. Applicant did not submit
any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing. She provided no facts warranting a change to
her character of service.
AFPC/DPPRS’s complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
26 May 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
there has been no response received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review of
the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that any corrective action is warranted. Therefore, we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of
primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden
of having suffered either an error or injustice. The preponderance of
evidence reflects a probable pre-existing medical condition that, had
it been known, the applicant would not have been accepted into
military service. Hence, an erroneous enlistment was not the result of
fraudulent conduct by the applicant. Therefore, in the absence of
persuasive 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-01533 in Executive Session on 22 June 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
Ms. Glenda Scheiner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 May 2006, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 May 2006.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 2006.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01195
On 6 May 2004, the commander notified the member that he was being discharged for fraudulent entry into the Air Force. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be separated with an uncharacterized entry- level separation On 14 May 2004, the applicant was involuntarily discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (fraudulent entry into military service), with service uncharacterized and a reenlistment code (RE) of 2C in...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03503
On 15 June 1984, applicant's commander recommended discharge for drug abuse. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the actions...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01960
Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02916
Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 6 Mar 02. The consultant states that a lab slip dated 27 Mar 02 is in her medical records indicating a positive pregnancy test. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02254
On 2 January 1992, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for misconduct-civil conviction. On 6 January 1992, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Misconduct-Civil Conviction and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 9 April 1996, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied his application and concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00392
On 14 January 2003, the applicant received an LOC for failure to obey an order or regulation. DPPAE states there is no evidence in the applicant’s record to support that the RE code she received is incorrect or that it created an injustice. Exhibit F. Letter of Recommendation, dated 3 May 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00999
Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the request be denied (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant and counsel on 5 May 2006, for review and response. Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00651
Additionally, the applicant’s base driving privileges were suspended. In addition, based on his overall record of service, the contents of the FBI Report of Investigation, and the absence of evidence related to his post-service activities and accomplishments, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02136
On 2 July 1984, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, Unsatisfactory Performance. The commander recommended the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge based on the following: (1) On 27 November 1981, he received a Letter of Reprimand for being 3 hours late for work. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03270
In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 10 Oct 84, the staff judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge. On 19 Aug 82, the applicant was discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge. DPPRS states that based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the...