RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03567 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her character of service be changed from “uncharacterized” to 
“honorable.” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was counseled that she would receive an administrative 
discharge for erroneous enlistment; however, she did not 
understand what she was being told, and was too intimidated to 
question her commander. 

 

She was not dishonest when she enlisted in the Air Force. She 
did not have problems with her knee prior to entering the 
military; her problems began shortly after drill. 

 

After mentioning her knee problems to a friend, she was 
encouraged to file a claim with the DVA. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty, and documents related to her 
administrative discharge. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 4 Nov 08, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for 
a period of six years. 

 

On 29 Dec 08, the applicant was notified by her commander that he 
was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for erroneous 
enlistment. The reason for the proposed action was her commander 
received a medical narrative summary, dated 24 Dec 08 that found 
the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist. 

 

She acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, waived 
her right to counsel, and her right to submit statements in her 


own behalf. The case file was found legally sufficient and the 
discharge authority approved the separation. 

 

On 31 Dec 08, she was discharged with an uncharacterized entry 
level separation by reason of failed medical/physical procurement 
standards. She served on active duty for a period of 1 month and 
27 days. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states the applicant’s 
separation was completed in accordance with established policy 
and administrative procedures. 

 

SGPS states during basic military training (BMT) the applicant’s 
symptoms began to limit her physical training and marching 
movements, and became so intense she could not continue in 
training. She did not disclose a past knee injury and was 
cleared for accession. Her condition was not caused by military 
service, but appears it was aggravated by the extensive physical 
training required during BMT. At the time of separation the 
applicant did not request an AETC/SG waiver, and signed a letter 
understanding that if separated for the reasons cited, she would 
not be entitled to any disability, retirement, or severance pay. 

 

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant’s 
service characterization is correct as reflected on her DD Form 
214. 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 
continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and 
the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, 
her uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance with DoD 
and Air Force instructions. 

 

DPSOS 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 was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority. 

 

The applicant should not have been allowed to join the Air Force 
because she had lateral meniscus derangement. Had the Air Force 
known of this condition at the time of the applicant’s 
enlistment, she would not have been allowed to enter into the 
military. Although the applicant states she was intimidated by 
her commander to ask questions, her medical condition does not 
meet medical assessment standards. 


 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 25 Mar 11, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, 
a response has not been received (Exhibit E). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; 
however, we do not find these assertions, in and of themselves, 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the 
Air Force OPRs. Therefore, we conclude that the applicant has 
failed to sustain her burden of proof that she has been the 
victim of an error or an injustice. In the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, we find no 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 Docket Number 
BC-2010-03567 in Executive Session on 24 May 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 


 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2010-03567 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 22 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 15 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair