AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03426
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 10 MAY 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her uncharacterized entry-level separation be changed to an under
honorable conditions (general) discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She believes her discharge should be changed. She would like to
renter the Air force or enlist in the Navy.
In support of her request, the applicant provided a copy of her DD
Form 214, and a DD Form 293.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 16 June
1999, as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.
The applicant tested positive for sickle cell trait during the zero
week of training. On 21 June 1999, she signed a statement of
understanding concerning Sickle Cell Trait and discharge options. She
further elected to be voluntarily separated.
On 30 June 1999 the applicant submitted a request for early
separation. The applicant’s separation request was approved on 15
July 1999.
On 16 July 1999, the servicemember was separated with an
uncharacterized entry-level separation under the provisions of AFI 36-
3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (miscellaneous/general
reasons.) The servicemember served one month and one day of active
duty service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. They state based on the
documentation on file in the servicemember’s master 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.
Airmen are given an entry-level separation when separation is
initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The
Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a servicemember served less
than 180 days of continuous active service, it would be unfair to the
servicemember and the service to characterize their limited service.
The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the processing of the servicemember’s
discharge. Furthermore, she did not provided any facts to warrant a
change to the servicemember’s entry-level separation.
A complete copy of the Air Force 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
15 December 2006, for review and response. As of this date, no
response has been 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 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 an error or an injustice. After careful
consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence
provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded the discharge action
the applicant received was in error or unjust. The applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. Shortly after entering military training, the
applicant tested positive for Sickle-Cell Trait and was advised on the
discharge options available to her. She acknowledged she understood
the implications of the discharge options and elected to be
voluntarily discharged from the Air Force. In this respect, the
discharge and reenlistment code the applicant received indicates an
uncharacterized entry-level separation for serving less than six
months of service which would be appropriate considering that the
applicant served 31 days of active military service. Based on the
documentation in the applicant’s records, it appears the processing of
the discharge and the characterization of the discharge were
appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.
Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant is 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-
2006-03426 in Executive Session on 21 February 2007 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Nov 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Nov 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Dec 06.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00047
The applicant’s health record, dated 7 June 2004, indicates she tested positive for sickle cell trait. On 10 June 2004, the applicant signed and dated a Statement of Understanding of Sickle-Cell Trait and Discharge Options, indicating she elected discharge versus remaining on active duty. 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 Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02724 INDEX CODE: 110 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated into the Regular Air Force. The applicant was discharged on 13 August 1998 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Miscellaneous/General Reasons) with an Entry Level Separation and character of service...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00976
SGPS states a review of the records provided shows the applicant was separated after blood tests demonstrated he had the sickle cell trait. DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction. The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his discharge is in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00731
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00731 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility code of 2C be changed to 3K and his reason for separation be changed to Secretarial Authority. On 2 July 2002, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request for separation based on his...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02904
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02904 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 MAR 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2C to a favorable one that would allow her to reenlist into the military. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01489
In support of his application, the applicant provided a personal statement, copies of his military personnel records, a letter from the applicant’s father to the basic training commander, and a statement from the applicant’s recruiter. DPPRS states that by signing the “Statement of Understanding of Sickle-Cell Trait and Discharge Options” the applicant acknowledged the Air Force’s policy on sickle cell trait and understood, if he elected to separate, he would not be allowed back into the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02140
After reviewing her military records, they returned it on 10 August 2006, as there was no justification to change her service dates. She submitted a Standard Form 180 sometime in 1984 “to prepare for review of discharge”, and stated on her form that her dates of active service were from 25 October 1983 to 6 January 1984. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2006-02140 in Executive Session on 11 July...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03386
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, 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. We, therefore, conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that his uncharacterized entry level separation be changed...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02536
He was separated from the Air Force on 4 Oct 05. 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 Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02456
Shortly after entering basic military training, the applicant was diagnosed with a medical condition (Chondromalacia Patellae) that existed prior to service, which had it been detected at that time should have disqualified him for enlistment. In this respect, the discharge the servicemember received indicates an uncharacterized entry-level separation for serving less than six months of service which would be appropriate considering that the applicant served 56 days of active military...