RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02622 

 COUNSEL: XXX 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be corrected as follows: 

 

 1. Block 26 – Separation Code be changed from JDA 
(Fraudulent Entry into Military Service) to read JFC (Erroneous 
Entry (Other)) 

 

 2. Block 27 – Reentry (RE) Code be changed FROM 2C 
(Involuntary Separation with honorable or uncharacterized 
character of service) to read RE-1M 

 

 3. Block 28 – Narrative Reason for Separation be changed 
from “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service” to read “Erroneous 
Enlistment” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The applicant’s eight-page statement is summarized as follows: 

 

 1) During the first meeting with her Air Force recruiter, 
the applicant disclosed her bee and penicillin allergies. The 
recruiter informed her that the allergies were not a problem and 
her father witnessed the conversation. 

 

 2) During the second meeting with her recruiter, she was 
asked about the severity of her bee allergy to which she replied 
she was required to carry two epinephrine auto-injectors or Epi-
Pens. Her recruiter instructed her that she did not need to 
disclose this information when she processed through the Military 
Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). 

 

 3) She met her recruiter the day before she reported to the 
MEPS. He had her practice filling out the same paperwork she 
would complete at the MEPS, instructing her on the appropriate 
“Yes” and “No” responses to each question. She did not believe 
she was doing anything wrong, but thought her recruiter was 
helping her to complete the MEPS process by ensuring she did not 
make mistakes on her paperwork. The following day, she completed 
the MEPS paperwork as instructed by her recruiter. 

 


 4) On 7 Sep 10, she reported to boot camp. Approximately 
two weeks into basic military training (BMT) she began to 
experience some wear and tear issues with her knee. On 18 Oct 
10, during a visit to the Trainee Health clinic, the physician 
noticed she had a prescription for an EpiPen in her medical 
history. She immediately disclosed her use of the EpiPen since 
2008. The physician informed her she would need a waiver. 

 

 5) On 27 Oct 10, a medical provider reviewed the 
applicant’s medical records and recommended she be 
administratively separated from service, but permitted to enlist 
when her condition was resolved. However, her commander 
processed her administrative separation for Fraudulent Enlistment 
and stated she would be ineligible for reentry in the Air Force. 

 

 6) The applicant subsequently informed her recruiter of her 
impending discharge because of her condition to which he replied 
“sorry that happened.” 

 

The applicant states an erroneous enlistment does not involve 
fraud and a fraudulent entry involves deliberate deception on the 
part of the member. She does not dispute her bee allergy 
disqualifies her from military service; however, she does 
adamantly dispute she deliberately concealed her bee allergy. 
She disclosed the allergy to her recruiter, who represents the 
Air Force; therefore, she did not conceal any facts or 
deliberately misrepresent the nature of her bee allergy. In 
addition, she would not attempt to conceal a condition that was 
readily apparent in her medical history. 

 

She declined to seek a waiver after she was informed that 
obtaining a waiver was essentially impossible and would delay her 
separation. 

 

She can eventually meet the medical standards for enlistment. In 
accordance with a Department of Defense instruction, “Applicants 
who have been treated for 3-5 years with maintenance venom 
immunotherapy DO meet the standards.” If she were to seek 
treatment, her current narrative reason for separation and 
separation code will make it almost impossible to enlist in the 
Air Force. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal 
statement, copies of a support letter, her DD Form 214 and 
chronological records of medical care. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 7 Sep 10, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 
5 Nov 10, she received an uncharacterized entry level separation 
for fraudulent entry into military service. She served eight 
months and one day on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change her narrative reason. SPGS acknowledges the applicant’s 
claim that she informed her recruiter of her allergy and he 
informed her not to disclose the information; however, the DD 
Form 2807, Report of Medical History, states that making a false 
statement may result in 5 years confinement and/or a $10,000 fine 
or both and she still withheld the information. 

 

SGPS states the separation was done in accordance with 
established policy and administrative procedures. 

 

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS notes that although the 
applicant may have been informed not to disclose her medical 
history, she agreed to not disclose her history. DPSOS indicates 
that no errors or injustices in the processing of the discharge 
action were found. Based on the documentation on file in the 
master personnel record, the discharge to include the 
characterization of service was consistent with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority. In addition, 
the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors 
or injustices that occurred in the discharge process. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change her RE code. DPSOA states RE code 2C is correct and 
driven by the applicant’s entry level separation with an 
uncharacterized character of service. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states the Air Force opinions narrowly address 
whether the discharge fell within allowable parameters. In 
addition, the propriety and equity of the decision is not 
addressed. Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, allows for the separation authority to 


waive the discharge and allow the member to remain in service. 
Her separation documents do not address whether this option was 
even considered. There is no indication any effort was made to 
help her meet the standards for a medical waiver of her 
condition. Since she concealed a medical condition that she had 
no way of knowing was service disqualifying, it is untenable that 
the separation authority chose to discharge her and not consider 
a medical waiver to allow her to continue to serve. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After 
reviewing the applicant’s submission and the evidence of record, 
we are persuaded that some relief is warranted. Although the 
actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge were 
appropriate and she was assigned the correct RE code, after 
review of the total circumstances of her case, we believe she 
should be provided the opportunity to apply for enlistment in the 
armed services. We note the applicant’s specific requests 
regarding the correction of her record, i.e., assignment of a “1” 
series RE code and change of the narrative reason to “Erroneous 
Enlistment; however, in our view, the more appropriate 
corrections would be to change the reason for her separation to 
“Secretarial Authority,” with a separation code of “KFF,” and an 
RE code of “3K” (Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the Air Force 
Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) when no other 
reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate). Our 
recommendation in no way guarantees the applicant will be allowed 
to return to the Air Force or any branch of the service. Whether 
she is successful in reentering a branch of the armed forces will 
depend on the needs of the service to which application is made. 
Therefore, we recommend her records be corrected to the extent 
indicated below. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 5 November 
2012, she was discharged by reason of “Secretarial Authority,” 
with a separation code of “KFF” and a reenlistment eligibility 
(RE) code of “3K.” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

All members voted to correct the record. The following members 
of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 
20 Mar 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-02622: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AETC/SGPS, dated 12 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 21 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 23 Nov 11. 

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

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jan 12. 

 

 Panel Chair