RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03351
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	                    	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her discharge documents indicate she fraudulently enlisted in 
the military.  She respectfully disagrees with this statement as 
she did not intentionally lie to her recruiter or to the medical 
providers at her entrance exam.  Her knee injury occurred prior 
to her entry into the military while she was a freshman in high 
school.  After therapy, she was cleared by her primary care 
physician.  Her recruiter advised her that she should not 
disclose her condition during her Military Entrance and 
Processing Station (MEPS) exam.  It was never her intention to 
end her military career in this manner; therefore, it is her 
desire to have her discharge characterization changed.  

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
entered active duty on 19 July 2011.  

On 23 August 2011, the applicant was seen by medical personnel 
as a result of experiencing left knee pain during basic 
training.  The Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 23 
August 2011, indicates she had a history of a dislocated left 
patella in August 2007, which she did not disclose during her 
MEPS processing.  Due to her condition, which existed prior to 
service (EPTS, the health care provider non-recommended the 
applicant for reenlistment.  

Based upon the physician’s findings, the applicant was notified 
by her commander of his intent to recommend her for an 
uncharacterized entry-level separation based on fraudulent 
entry, under the provisions of Air Force Program Directive 36-32 
and Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section 5C, 
Defective Enlistments, paragraph 5.15 under Basis for Discharge 
for Fraudulent Enlistment.  

The applicant acknowledged her commander’s notification, waived 
her rights to consult counsel and to submit statements in her 
own behalf.  

Subsequently, the discharge authority approved the recommended 
discharge and directed the applicant be processed for an 
uncharacterized entry-level separation with a narrative reason 
for separation as “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service” and a 
Reentry (RE) Code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an 
honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without 
characterization of service).  

The applicant was released from active duty effective 2 
September 2011 in the grade of airman basic (E-1).  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AETC/SGPS recommends denial.  SGPS states the applicant’s 
separation was processed in accordance with established policy 
and administrative procedures.  If the Board grants the 
applicant’s request, once her condition has been corrected, 
rehabilitation completed, and she has been released to full 
unrestricted physical activities, she can see her recruiter to 
reapply to enter the military.  

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that had the Air 
Force known of the applicant’s condition, she would have been 
rendered ineligible to enlist in the Air Force.  Since the 
recruiter informed the applicant not to disclose her preexisting 
injury, and the applicant herself agreed to not disclose the 
same, they concur that fraudulent enlistment was indeed the 
correct basis for discharge.  

Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
records, the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  

The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors 
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  She 
provides no facts warranting a change to her separation code, 
reentry code, or her narrative reason for separation.  

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  The applicant’s RE code of “2C” 
is required based on her entry-level separation and she has not 
provided any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to 
her RE code.  

DPSOA notes that SGPS indicates that once the applicant meets 
the medical criteria for military duty, they can support a 
change of RE code.  However, the 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.  SGPC is qualified to recommend the applicant be given 
an opportunity to be medically screened for reentry into 
military service based on her current medical status (if 
otherwise eligible).  Additionally, a waiver of the RE code “2C” 
from recruiting services, based on the medical community’s 
recommendation of meeting medical requirements, would be more 
appropriate than changing the applicant’s RE code.  A waiver of 
the RE code would identify prior circumstances for screening 
instead of circumventing aspects of her prior service.  

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 14 December 2012, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit F).  As of this date, this office has received 
no response.

________________________________________________________________
_

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 an 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 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03351 in Executive Session on 8 May 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                   , Vice Chair
	                   , Member
	                   , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03351:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jul 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 12 Oct 12.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 16 Oct 12.
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 28 Nov 12.
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 12.




                   
Vice Chair

4

3