RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00113
INDEX CODE: 110.12
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 June 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her discharge be changed to a medical discharge or general (under honorable
conditions) discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She did not understand the severity of having an uncharacterized discharge
when she departed the military or the impact it would have on future job
opportunities.
In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal statement and
copies of her discharge documents.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 15 January 2002, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the
age of 20 in the grade of airman for a period of four years.
On 15 February 2002, the applicant presented for medical care for a
migraine headache. It was discovered during her medical evaluation that
the applicant had a history of migraines.
On 25 February 2002, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant’s
discharge for defective enlistment. The applicant acknowledged receipt of
the recommendation and waived her options to consult legal counsel and
submit statements in her own behalf. On 28 February 2002, the
recommendation was found to be legally sufficient by the Assistant Judge
Advocate. On 1 March 2002, the discharge authority approved the
applicant’s discharge under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208,
Chapter 5, Section 5c, Paragraph 5.14, with an entry level separation under
the basis of erroneous enlistment. The applicant was discharged effective
5 March 2002 with an uncharacterized entry-level separation with a
separation code JFC (erroneous entry) and a reentry code of 2C (entry level
separation without characterization of service). She had served 1 month
and 21 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 provide any evidence or identify any errors or injustices
that occurred in the discharge process.
DPPRS states airmen are given an entry-level separation/uncharacterized
service characterization when a 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 continuous active service,
it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their
limited service. Therefore, the applicant’s uncharacterized character of
service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force Instructions.
The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2
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 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 probable error or injustice. The applicant did not provide
persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was
erroneous, her substantial rights were violated, or that her commanders
abused their discretionary authority. The characterization of discharge
which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately
reflects the circumstances of her separation and we do not find the
characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust. In view of the
foregoing, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on
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 15 March 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-00113:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jan 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/ DPPRS, dated 23 Jan 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Feb 07.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00098
Therefore, the remaining issue for consideration by the Board is the Narrative Reason for Separation _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: It was recommended that she be separated for a medical condition. On 30 March 2006, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend her for an entry-level separation for erroneous enlistment for the following reason: SF Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care dated 21 February...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03452
On 15 May 03, applicant requested voluntary separation from the Air Force. After review, the Medical Consultant recommends denial and states she was medically disqualified from the air traffic control career field due to migraine headaches. Therefore, we recommend her records be corrected as indicated below.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03054
We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the uncharacterized entry-level separation received by the former member should be changed to an honorable discharge. Rather, an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service is used in those cases where the member has not yet completed six months of service at the time separation proceedings were, for whatever reason, initiated. However, after a thorough review of the applicant's submission and the evidence of record, we see no...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00283
She was advised to file for an honorable discharge six months after being discharged. Rather, as was noted by the Air Force, an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service is used in those cases where the member has not yet completed six months of service at the time separation proceedings were, for whatever reason, initiated. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007-00283 in Executive...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00827
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. However, at the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. Additionally, the Board noted that airmen are given entry-level separation uncharacterized service characterization when a separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00038
Enlistment medical standards specify that “Recurrent headaches of all types of sufficient severity or frequency as to interfere with normal function or a history of such headaches within 3 years” are disqualifying for enlistment. There is insufficient information in the available records to draw a conclusion and make any recommendation regarding her migraine headaches and her suitability for military service, however at the time she was offered training in another Air Force specialty she...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03760
After a thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant's complete submission, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-03760 in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01314
On that same date, the discharge authority approved the entry-level separation with service uncharacterized. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPAE found that the RE code 4C, “separated - failure to meet physical standards for enlistment…,” is correct. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01342
On 20 April 2007, her commander notified her he was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant be separated from the service with an entry-level separation. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01799
DPPRS concludes the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and did not provide any facts warranting a change to his reenlistment eligibility code. DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a personal statement dated 25 July 2005, the applicant reiterates his reasons for wanting to enter active duty service. At...