RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03870 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His narrative reason for separation, “Erroneous Entry,” be 
removed from his records. 

 

2. His service characterization be changed from uncharacterized 
to honorable. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The narrative reason for separation reflected on his DD Form 
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Service, is 
inaccurate. 

 

He was not aware of any medical conditions prior to his entry 
into the Air Force. He was discharged due to a developing a 
medical condition called ulcerative colitis. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 5 Sep 2006, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force. 

 

On 2 Feb 2007, his commander notified him he was recommending he 
be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 
36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman. The reason for this action 
was he was diagnosed with a condition that existed prior to 
entering the military and was not permanently aggravated by 
service. The specific reasons are reflected in the Notification 
Memorandum, dated 2 Feb 2007, at Exhibit B. 

 

On 2 Feb 2007, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification and waived his rights to consult with 
legal counsel or to submit statements. 

 

In an undated letter, the Chief, Adverse Actions found the 
discharge legally sufficient. 

 


On 16 Feb 2007, he received an entry-level separation with 
uncharacterized service. The narrative reason for separation 
was “Erroneous Entry.” He served 5 months and 12 days of total 
active service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change 
his reentry (RE) code. SGPS states that the separation was done 
in accordance with established policy and administrative 
procedures. The applicant developed symptoms at approximately 
the fourth week of basic training. The gastroenterology 
clinic’s diagnosis found him disqualified for military service. 
Subsequently he was processed for an entry level separation. He 
applied for and has received a 10 percent disability rating by 
the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). With his history he 
does not meet current medical criteria for military duty; SGPS 
does not support a change to his RE code. 

 

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his character of service and narrative reason for 
separation. DPSOR states that they found no evidence of an 
error or injustice in the processing of his discharge. 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 determined if a member served less than 180 days of 
continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and 
the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, 
his uncharacterized character of service is correct and in 
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The 
documentation on file in the master personnel records supports 
the basis for discharge to include the applicant's character of 
service and narrative reason for separation. The applicant did 
not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices 
that occurred in the discharge processing. 

 

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He assumed his discharge was going to be honorable based on the 
fact that it was for a medical reason and he had no 
disciplinary actions during his service. The evaluation 
indicated that his condition of inflammatory bowel disease “did 
exist prior to service but service member was unaware.” He 
questions how a disease that a person has no knowledge of can 


exist and why the DVA would grant him service connected 
disability for a disease that existed prior to service. 

 

He did not request a waiver because he was not offered one. A 
military doctor told him that ulcerative colitis is an 
automatic disqualifier, and fighting to stay in was a waste of 
my time. 

 

He is not requesting this change to rejoin the military. He is 
a licensed peace officer, however, in order to find employment 
with a police department he requires a good military discharge. 

 

The applicant’s complete response 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a 
carefully reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we find that the applicant has not provided 
sufficient evidence to warrant disturbing the record. While the 
applicant states that he was never notified that his commander 
was recommending his discharge for Erroneous Enlistment, the 
evidence reflects otherwise. In this respect we note that the 
applicant acknowledged receipt of the 2 Feb 2007, discharge 
Notification Memorandum wherein his commander stated he would be 
discharged for “Erroneous Enlistment.” Additionally, his DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, 
issued in conjunction with his 16 Feb 2007 separation, 
acknowledged by the applicant, also reflects “Erroneous 
Enlistment.” In view of this, we conclude the applicant has 
failed to sustain his burden that he has been the victim of an 
error or injustice. Therefore, 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. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-
2012-03870 in Executive Session on 30 May 2013, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 1 Oct 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Oct 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Oct 2012. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair