Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03996
Original file (BC-2007-03996.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03996
            INDEX CODE:  112.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reentry code of “4C” - Failed  Medical/Physical  Procurement  Standards,
be changed to a code that would allow him to reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires to reenlist.  He has a medical waiver proving he  does  not  have
asthma.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy  of  a  Waiver  and
Determination  Report  and  documentation  extracted   from   his   military
personnel records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to documentation provided by the applicant,  he  enlisted  in  the
Untied Stated Marine Corps on 13 February 2006  and  was  discharged  on  11
April 2006 for a "condition, not a disability."

On 1 February 2007, he  enlisted  in  the  Air  Force  Reserve  (AFRes)  and
entered active duty on 30 July 2007.  On 27 August 2007,  he  was  separated
from the Air Force for "failing medical/physical procurement standards."

He received a reentry code of 4C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1E  recommends  denial.   A1E  states  the  applicant’s  reentry  code
reflects he "failed medical/physical procurement standards” for  entry  into
the armed forces, specifically  the  Air  Force  or  AFRes.   However,  this
reentry does not preclude the applicant from reentering  the  Air  Force  or
AFRes, if in fact he meets  the  entry  requirements  at  the  time  of  his
application, i.e.,  the  applicant  must  meet  all  the  physical,  mental,
aptitude requirements, etc required for enlistment into  the  Air  Force  or
AFRes at the time of application.  Thus, per consultation with  AFRC/RS,  it
is suggested that if the applicant  still  has  an  interest  in  the  armed
forces of the United States, and he  feels  that  he  meets  the  applicable
standards for entry; he should contact the armed service  recruiter  of  his
choice and make application  for  their  determination  of  his  ability  to
serve.

AFRC/A1E’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 8 February 2008, the  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment within 30 days  (Exhibit  C).   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.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, it is  our  opinion  that
given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air  Force,  the
reentry code assigned was proper and  in  compliance  with  the  appropriate
directives.  The applicant has not provided any evidence which shows he  has
been barred from entering any branch of service based upon  the  4C  reentry
code.  Therefore, 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.  In the absence of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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-2007-
03996 in Executive Session on 18 March 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member
                 Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 November 2007, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRC/A1E, dated 31 January 2008.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 February 2008.





                 CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                 Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02307

    Original file (BC-2008-02307.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant filed an IG complaint containing one allegation that the superintendent of the Joint Service Honor Guard (JSHG) reprised against her for making a protected disclosure to the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Office. Noting that the IG investigation substantiated reprisal, we find it reasonable to believe the applicant would have been continued on active duty orders for the period of 30 Sep 06 to 30 Sep 07. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2008-02307 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01903

    Original file (BC-2003-01903.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that he be discharged with an entry-level separation. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 6 May 2002, he was issued an Reenlistment...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01900

    Original file (BC-2003-01900.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01900 INDEX CODE: 110.02, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized discharge be changed to a medical discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not properly discharged from the Air Force. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01984

    Original file (BC-2003-01984.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States, a personal statement, and extracts from his military personnel and medical records. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 21 Nov 03...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02702

    Original file (BC-2006-02702.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was told 12731b pertained only to those reservists who had served more than 15 but less than 20 years and had experienced an injury considered not in the line of duty were eligible for retirement. He would pay the severance back if he could retire. A1B’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant believes he earned retirement benefits by serving for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01486

    Original file (BC-2006-01486.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His commander and the Adjutant General (TAG) of the State of Indiana recommended him for promotion consideration to the grade of colonel by the Spring 2006 Air National Guard Colonel Review Board that convened on 1 March 2006. His promotion package for consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Spring 2006 Air National Guard Colonel Review Board was submitted to NGB but was not in turn...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00902

    Original file (BC-2003-00902.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was promoted to 1st lieutenant (0-2) on 6 July 1997 and was promoted to captain on 1 October 2001 by the FY02 AFRES Captain Promotion Board. 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00354

    Original file (BC-2006-00354.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He contends his request was disapproved because he had filed an age discrimination lawsuit. According to HQ AFRC/DPZ (Exhibit B), the applicant was previously assigned to the Air Force Reserve as an ART and as a Title V civilian employee (Non-ART employee). His civilian Air Force supervisor explained that the applicant had been allowed to perform an annual active duty tour (ADT) on or about 24 Jan-6 Feb 93, used military leave on or about 11-17 May 93, for a total of four weeks of military...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01145

    Original file (BC-2004-01145.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01145 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow her to enlist in the Air National Guard (ANG). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She enlisted in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03166

    Original file (BC-2008-03166.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The FPEB determined that his condition was not combat-related thus there was no error or injustice when his disability or retirement was processed. The complete DPSD 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 19 September 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging...