RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02101 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His uncharacterized service be changed to medical. 

 

2. His reason for separation (Failed Medical/Physical 
Procurement Standards) along with the corresponding Separation 
Program Designator (SPD) code of “JFW” be changed to medical 
reasons. 

 

3. His entry level separation be changed to a medical 
discharge. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was never offered a medical evaluation board (MEB) for a 
condition that started while in the service. He has been 
service-connected with a disability condition (Atrial Flutter) 
and was originally rated at 10 percent; however, he is now rated 
at zero percent by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of 
extracts from his master personnel record (MPR) and his DVA 
rating decisional documents. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 Mar 03 for 
a period of four years. 

 

On 16 May 03, the squadron commander notified the applicant of 
discharge action for erroneous enlistment. The proposed action 
was based on a Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of 
Medical Care, which indicated the applicant should not have 
been able to join the Air Force because of atrial fibrillation 
(irregular heartbeat) and it was determined the condition did 
not meet the medical standards to enlist. The commander 


recommended an entry level separation. On that same date, the 
applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, 
waived his right to consult counsel and to submit statements in 
his own behalf. The Deputy Chief, Military Justice, found the 
case file legally sufficient to support separation. On 19 May 
03, the discharge authority approved the entry level separation. 

 

The applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation 
on 21 May 03, by reason of “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement 
Standards,” and was issued an RE code of 4C (Separated for 
concealment of juvenile records, minority, failure to meet 
physical standards for enlistment, failure to attain a 
9.0 reading grade level as measured by the Air Force Reading 
Abilities Test, or void enlistments). He was credited with 
two months and two days of active duty service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AETC/SGPS recommends denial, stating, in part, that based on the 
findings at the time of separation, the separation action was in 
accordance with established policy and administrative 
procedures. In addition, they noted that since the applicant 
does not meet the medical criteria for military duty, they do 
not support a change to the applicant’s DD Form 214. 

 

They also noted that during his second week of training he was 
having shortness of breath and palpations; was seen by a 
provider and placed on medication for control; returned to the 
hospital three hours later with recurring symptoms and was 
admitted. He was treated with cardioversion and discharged four 
days later with good results. Medical notes indicate he and his 
family talked with medical board personnel concerning the 
options of separation vs. a medical board. Since the condition 
was discovered within 180 days of enlistment and is 
disqualifying for military duty, he was processed for an entry 
level separation. He was informed of the diagnoses and 
treatment plan. It was felt that this condition was not caused 
by military service, but existed prior to service and was 
aggravated by the intense physical activity, and he was unable 
to continue training. A condition must be considered service 
connected and/or the member must have served 180 days or more of 
active duty to be considered for future VA disability benefits. 

 

The complete AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. They note 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 regulation and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority. 

 


In addition, the applicant’s record reveals that his condition 
was not caused by military service, but existed prior to service 
and was aggravated by the intense physical activity, and he was 
unable to continue his training. The applicant should not have 
been allowed to join the Air Force because of atrial 
fibrillation. Had the Air Force known of this condition at the 
time of applicant's enlistment, he would not have been allowed 
entry into the military. Although he states his condition did 
not exist prior to enlistment, his medical condition does not 
meet assessment standards. 

 

The applicant’s service characterization is correct as reflected 
on his 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 that 
if a member served less than 180 days of continuous service, it 
would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize 
their limited service. Therefore, his uncharacterized service 
is correct and is in accordance with DoD and Air Force 
instructions. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 9 Dec 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 in this application. The discharge appears to comply 
with the governing AFI and we find no evidence to indicate that 
his separation, his reason for separation, or his character of 
service from the Air Force were inappropriate. We find no 
evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing 


the documentation that has been submitted in support of 
applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an 
injustice. Therefore, based on the available evidence of 
record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this 
application. 

 

4. Notwithstanding the above, in regard to the applicant’s 
request to change his character of service to medical, DPSOS has 
provided an adequate assessment of the applicant’s case and we 
are in agreement with their opinion and recommendation. In 
addition, when a member is within a 180 days of service we in 
most cases do not characterize his short service. Only on a 
case by case basis and it is clearly warranted by unusual 
circumstances of personal conduct and performance of military 
duty, can a member be given an honorable characterization of 
service. Therefore, we find no basis to favorably consider this 
portion of his application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2011-02101 in Executive Session on 20 March 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AETS/SGPS, dated 15 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 8 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 11. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair