RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04381 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His narrative reason for separation (Fraudulent Entry into 
Military Service) and separation code (JDA) be changed. 

 

2. His reentry (RE) code of 2C which denotes (Involuntarily 
separated with an entry level separation without characterization 
of service) be changed. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His recruiter told him not to say anything about his migraines 
because his doctor said they were not severe. 

 

The enlistment paperwork used was from a previous time he had 
gone to the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 22 Jan 08, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for 
a period of six years. 

 

On 15 Apr 08, the applicant was notified by his commander that he 
was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent 
entry. The reason for the proposed action was the applicant 
intentionally concealed a prior service medical condition, which 
if revealed, could have rendered him ineligible to enlist. 
Specifically, it was discovered he had a history of migraine 
headaches. 

 

He acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, waived 
his right to counsel, and his right to submit statements in his 
own behalf. The case file was found legally sufficient and the 
discharge authority approved the separation. 

 


On 23 Apr 08, the applicant was discharged with an 
uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of fraudulent 
entry into military service. Since his enlistment was considered 
fraudulent, his total active service was non-creditable. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states the applicant’s 
separation was completed in accordance with established policy 
and administrative procedures. It appears the applicant failed 
to disclose two conditions both of which would have disqualified 
him for military service. 

 

The records provided reveal during the applicant’s first week of 
basic military training (BMT) he experienced shortness of breath 
after a post-exercise and was seen in the emergency room and 
placed on an inhaler. The applicant disclosed he had been 
separated from the Navy in 2006, for asthma. He was also 
prescribed an inhaler in 1996, which was not noted on his 2006 
physical, nor disclosed during examination. On 27 Mar 10, he was 
seen at the Reid Clinic for migraine headaches. He stated he had 
migraine headaches in the past and used Replax for relief. He 
noted he had used his mother’s Replax just before leaving for 
BMT. In addition, he experiences nausea and sensitivity to light 
with migraines. This history was also not disclosed at the time 
of examination, and was not included on his medical history form. 

 

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the documentation on 
file in the master personnel records supports the basis for the 
discharge and the applicant’s entry level separation. The 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority. 

 

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, his 
uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance with DoD and 
Air Force instructions. 

 

The applicant failed to submit any evidence or identify any error 
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He 
provided no facts warranting a change to his discharge. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of his request to change his RE 
code. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code (2C) is correct based 
on his involuntary entry level separation with uncharacterized 


service. His RE code is not affected by his previous or current 
medical status. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 6 May 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 F). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 and adopt 
their 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 
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-2010-04381 in Executive Session on 29 Jun 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2010-04381 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 21 Dec 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 11 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 4 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair