RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00047
INDEX CODE: 112.10
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 July 2008
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code, separation code, and narrative
reason for separation be changed to enable her to reenter the military.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She has recent lab work indicating she does not have sickle cell trait.
When she was diagnosed with sickle cell trait during basic training, she
opted to separate from the military to take care of her ill grandfather.
She would now like to join the Navy.
In support of her application, the applicant provided a copy of a civilian
medical laboratory sickle cell test results and a DD Form 293, Application
for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Force of the United
States.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 1 June 2004, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age
of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.
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.
On 11 June 2004, the applicant signed an AF Form 31, Airmen’s Request for
Early Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation,
requesting a discharge effective 17 June 2004 for miscellaneous reasons,
specifically sickle cell trait.
On 16 June 2004, the applicant’s request for discharge was approved with an
effective date of 17 June 2004. On 17 June 2004, the applicant was
discharged with an uncharacterized entry-level separation with an RE code
of 2C, (entry level separation), a separation code of KND, and a narrative
reason for separation of miscellaneous/general reasons. She had served 17
days on active duty.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing. Additionally, the applicant
provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge she received.
The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 16
February 2007 for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of
this date, this office has received no 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 an injustice. 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 this application in Executive
Session on 17 April 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-00047:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Jan 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Feb 07.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-03426
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. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
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 | 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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-00360
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his separation, he was told he would be able to enlist in any branch of service but the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Medical Consultant noted the applicant requested an early separation based on his sickle cell trait. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00294
Following his removal from training he was placed on “casual status” while waiting to be reclassified and retrained in a new Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC). Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and he provided no facts warranting change to his SPD code The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-03754
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s last period of active duty in the Air Force began on 8 Feb 82. On 23 Mar 88, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. As of this date, this office has not received a response (Exhibit E).
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03035
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03035 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from “Personality Disorder” to “Medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01150
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01150 INDEX CODE: 100.00, 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 OCTOBER 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied...