RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00372
      INDEX CODE:  110.00
      COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 20 MAY 2008

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His character of service (uncharacterized), his reentry code  (2C)  and  his
narrative  reason  for  separation  (fraudulent  entry)  be  changed  and/or
removed from his DD 214.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The cause of his pain was never established.  He was cleared by all  doctors
before entering military service.  When he signed his discharge  papers,  he
did not understand that he was being separated for a  preexisting  condition
or fraudulent entry.

He had informed his recruiter and the military physician of an  appendectomy
which had been performed on him in June 2000.  He completed  basic  military
training (BMT) before experiencing his illness.  He started  having  stomach
pains around  the  completion  of  BMT  which  resulted  in  his  discharge.
Medical tests and exams were performed.  A  military  physician  recommended
his discharge due to a  pre-existing  condition.   Other  than  the  illness
before  his  appendectomy,  he  never  experienced  medical  problems.   His
discharge was not the result of medical issues and he is ready to  join  the
Air National Guard.

In  support  of  his  application,  the  applicant  submits   his   personal
statement, copies of  progress  letters  from  various  medical  facilities,
copies of character reference letters, a copy of his DD  214,  and  excerpts
from his discharge case file.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 May 01, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in  the  grade
of airman basic (E-1) at the age of 19.  After completion  of  BMT,  he  was
assigned to technical training with the Security Forces Squadron.

In a chronological record of medical care entry dated  4  Sep  01,  a  staff
physician diagnosed the applicant with chronic abdominal pain  that  existed
prior to enlistment for which the applicant was  receiving  treatment.   She
indicated  that  the  condition  prevented  the  applicant’s  training   and
identified the ailment as a clearly disqualifying  physical  condition  that
does not meet  Air  Force  standards  as  set  forth  in  AFI  48-123.   She
recommended the applicant be administratively separated and  denied  reentry
into military service.

The  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was  recommending  the
applicant be separated from the Air Force under the provisions of  AFPD  36-
32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.15, for  Fraudulent  Entry.   The  applicant
was advised of his rights.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification  and
waived his rights to consult  counsel  and  submit  statements  in  his  own
behalf.  In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 27 Sep  01,  the
Assistant Staff Judge Advocate, found the file was  legally  sufficient  and
recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with  an  entry
level separation.  On 28  Sep  01,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the
recommended separation.

On 4 Oct 01, the applicant was separated with an entry level separation  for
Fraudulent Entry.  He had served four months and eight days on active  duty.
 A reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C  (Involuntarily  separated  with
an honorable discharge or entry level  separation  without  characterization
of service) was assigned.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states 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,
and the discharge was within the  discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.
DPPRS  asserts  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 of continuous  service,  it  would  be
unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited  service.
 DPPRS concludes the applicant’s uncharacterized  character  of  service  is
correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force Instructions.

The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his undated response,  the  applicant  reiterates  most  of  his  earlier
contentions and adds he had no complications or problems  with  his  stomach
after his appendix was removed.  He submitted  a  letter  to  the  recruiter
from the physician who performed  his  appendectomy  releasing  him  to  the
military without complications or restrictions.

He waived his right to counsel because of the  tests  and  exams  that  were
being done to him.  Also, he  was  not  fully  aware  of  the  circumstances
surrounding his discharge because of the medications he was taking.  Had  he
been fully aware of the accusations made and written on his DD 214 he  would
have definitely sought legal counsel.  He now wishes to  appear  before  the
Board to discuss the matter further, if needed (Exhibit E).

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the BCMR Medical Consultant  evaluated  the
case and he opines that no change in the records is warranted.

The BCMR Medical Consultant states the preponderance  of  evidence  confirms
the applicant had a history of chronic abdominal  pain  preceding  the  June
2000 appendectomy that was unknown to MEPS examiners  at  the  time  of  the
March 2001 update of the original January 2000 enlistment examination.   The
applicant did report the  appendectomy  and  submitted  a  letter  from  the
surgeon who performed the surgery stating as of August 2000  he  had  healed
well from the surgery.  Whether the  chronic  abdominal  pain  predated  the
January 2000  enlistment  is  not  clear  from  the  records  as  physicians
obtained a history of a duration that varied from one to three years  before
entry into military service.  The  applicant  also  reported  a  history  of
twice weekly headaches with a 7/10 severity  since  1998  that  he  did  not
report at the time of enlistment  examinations  in  January  2000  or  March
2001.   Such  a  history  would  have  likely   prompted   further   medical
evaluations prior to a determination of  fitness  for  entry  into  military
service.

There is no evidence he has had no further problems with abdominal pain  and
is fit and motivated to reenter military service in the Air National  Guard.
 Regardless of current absence of report of abdominal pain, the  applicant’s
medical  history  and  problems  documented  while  in  service  leading  to
discharge represent strong evidence of  lack  of  suitability  for  military
service.  In addition, the applicant was granted a  waiver  for  entry  into
military service for his flat feet based on examination and  his  report  of
no problems with his feet while running  track  in  high  school.   Although
overshadowed by the concurrent abdominal pain, his foot condition was  of  a
severity that would have by itself interfered  with  training  and  possibly
warranted disqualification  for  service  and  discharge.   His  history  of
frequent headaches of a  moderate  severity  also  raises  doubt  about  his
suitability for military service. The  three  chronic  conditions  combined,
two of which alone were severe enough to interfere with training, support  a
conclusion that the applicant is not medically suited for military  service.
 The BCMR Medical Consultant concludes that the action  and  disposition  in
this case are proper and equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment within 30 days on 10 Jan  07.   As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response (Exhibit G).

________________________________________________________________

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an  injustice.   Although  the  actions  taken  to  effect  the
applicant’s RE code and narrative reason  he  received  were  accurate,  the
Board majority believes he should be provided the opportunity to  apply  for
enlistment in the armed services.  Our recommendation in no  way  guarantees
that he will be allowed to join the Air National Guard or any branch of  the
service.  Whether he is successful in  reentering  a  branch  of  the  armed
forces will depend on the needs of  the  service  to  which  application  is
made.  Therefore, the Board majority believes the reason for his  separation
should be changed to “Secretarial Authority,”  with  a  separation  code  of
“KFF,” and his RE code to 3K (Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the  Air  Force
Board  for  Correction  of  Military  Records   (AFBCMR)   when   no   other
reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate.)

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of  error  or  injustice  that  would  warrant  a  change  to  his
character of service.  Notwithstanding the Board majority’s belief that  the
applicant’s RE code and narrative reason for separation should  be  changed,
evidence has not been provided which would lead  us  to  conclude  that  his
character of service was inappropriate.  The  record  clearly  supports  the
action taken and  we  are  not  inclined,  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence
provided,  to  correct  the  character  of  service  for   the   applicant’s
separation.  In view  of  the  above,  and  in  the  absence  of  persuasive
evidence, this portion of his request is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  on  4 October  2001,  he  was
discharged by reason of “Secretarial Authority,” with a separation  code  of
“KFF” and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “3K.”

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 7 March 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

               Ms. Cathlynn B. Novel, Panel Chair
               Ms. Dee Reardon, Member
               Mr. Jeffrey R. Shelton, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2006-00372:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Nov 06 w/atch.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Dec 06.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Dec 06 & AFBCMR
      dated 11 Jan 07.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated w/atchs
      Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR Med Consultant, dated 8 Jan 07.




                                  CATHLYNN B. NOVEL
                                  Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2006-00372



MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF


      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 4 October 2001, he was
discharged by reason of “Secretarial Authority,” with a separation code of
“KFF” and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “3K.”










  JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency