RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03706 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His reentry (RE) code of 4C which denotes “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 (AFRAT), or void enlistments,” be changed to “1A” 
which denotes “Ineligible to reenlist, but condition was waived,” 
to allow his reentry into the military. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He met all physical and mental requirements at the Military 
Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). 

 

On 2 Jun 08, medical personnel at Lackland AFB diagnosed him with 
vocal cord disorder without a proper medical examination. The 
test performed by the Air Force doctor was only a visual 
examination. The three civilian doctors all used a camera 
instrument, and then a series of tests were performed to see if 
he had Vocal Cord Dysfunction (VCD). 

 

He is willing to submit to any Air Force medical procedure to 
prove that he was misdiagnosed with VCD. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides (summarize 
attachments sent with the application). 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 20 May 08, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for 
a period of six years. 

 

On 3 Jun 08, the applicant was notified by his commander that he 
was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for erroneous 
enlistment. The reason for the proposed action was his commander 
received a medical narrative summary, dated 2 Jun 08 that 


indicated the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to 
enlist. The applicant should not have been allowed to join the 
Air Force because of vocal cord disorders. 

 

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

 

On 5 Jun 08, the applicant was discharged with an uncharacterized 
entry level separation by reason of failed medical/physical 
procurement standards. He served on active duty for 16 days. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AETC/SGPS makes no recommendation. SGPS states the 
applicant’s separation was completed in accordance with 
established policy and administrative procedures. Since it does 
appear the applicant meets current accession standards they could 
support his request for a change to his RE code. 

 

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA notes the applicant’s DD 
Form 214 reflects an erroneous RE code and, based on his 
involuntary separation without characterization of service, the 
appropriate RE code is “2C.” DPSOA states the applicant’s RE 
code will be administratively corrected to reflect 2C unless 
otherwise directed by the Board. If the Board is inclined to 
change the RE code, the only other option would be 3K – “Reserved 
for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other reenlistment 
eligibility code applies or is appropriate,” which would still 
require a waiver from Recruiting Services. 

 

DPSOA clarifies SGPS’s position that they could support a change 
in his RE code by stating that RE code 2C is not driven by a 
medical condition and SGPS does not have the authority or any 
valid input as to the correctness or recommended changes to the 
RE code. They are qualified to recommend the applicant be given 
an opportunity to be medically screened for reentry into military 
service based on his current medical status (if otherwise 
eligible). But a waiver of the RE code 2C from the recruiting 
services based on the medical community’s recommendation would be 
more appropriate than to change his RE code to suit the 
applicant’s desires. As a waiver of the RE code would identify 
prior circumstances for screening instead of circumventing 
aspects of his prior service. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 


 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 2 Dec 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 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. Although, the 
applicant was assigned an incorrect RE code, the administrative 
correction proposed by AFPC/DPSOA appears to be required based on 
the circumstances of the applicant’s separation. 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 AFPC/DPSOA and adopt its rationale as the primary basis 
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of 
an error or injustice. We further note that HQ AETC/SGPS states 
the applicant’s separation was completed in accordance with 
established policy and administrative procedures. Therefore, in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

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 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-2011-03706 in Executive Session on 8 Mar 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2011-03706 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Jun 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AETC/SGPS, dated 19 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 14 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair