RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01924
      COUNSEL: NONE
	                     		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

Her uncharacterized discharge be changed to reflect an honorable 
discharge.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She would like her record corrected so she can join the Air 
National Guard (ANG).  She provided all pertinent documentation 
to the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) and was sent 
to Basic Military Training (BMT) without being required to 
obtain a waiver.  Therefore, her discharge was through no fault 
of her own.  

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of her 
discharge file to include medical records.  

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 
served on active duty from 21 August 2012 to 21 September 2012.  

A medical narrative summary dated 18 September 2012, indicates 
the applicant did not meet the minimum medical standards to 
enlist due to her condition of Syncope (a medical term for 
fainting or passing out – a transient loss of consciousness and 
postural tone usually related to a temporary insufficient blood 
flow to the brain).  As a result, on 19 September 2012, the 
applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend 
her for an uncharacterized entry-level separation for erroneous 
enlistment under the authority of Air Force Program Directive 
(AFPD) 36-32 and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Chapter 5, 
Section C, Defective Enlistments, Paragraph 5.14, under Basis 
for Discharge for Erroneous Enlistment.  The commander’s 
notification indicated that she would be eligible to reenlist 
into the Air Force with an approved waiver.  

The applicant acknowledged receipt of her commander’s intent, 
waived her rights to counsel and to submit statements in her own 
behalf.  An Area Defense Counsel (ADC) questionnaire indicates 
the applicant waivered her right to talk to an ADC because she 
may try to reenlist in the future once she obtained a waiver 
from her civilian provider.  Subsequently, the discharge 
authority approved the recommended discharge.  

The applicant was discharged effective 21 September 2012, with 
an uncharacterized entry-level separation.  Her DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicates 
her narrative reason for separation as “Discharge Failed 
Medical/Physical Procurement Standards” and, her reentry (RE) 
code as “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 enlistment).  She 
served one month and one day on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends approval.  SGPS states that based on the 
documentation on file in the applicant’s records, the separation 
was done in accordance with established policy and 
administrative procedures.  However, once the applicant has no 
Syncope episodes for at least two years, she will meet the 
accession requirements and, if accepted, would qualify for the 
ANG.  

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that based on the 
documentation on file in the applicant’s 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.  Her discharge 
characterization and RE code is correct as reflected on her DD 
Form 214.  Airmen are given an uncharacterized entry-level 
separation when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of 
continuous active service.  Her uncharacterized service resulted 
in her RE code of “4C” and is in accordance with Department of 
Defense and Air Force instructions.  

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 5 August 2013, for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit E).  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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case and do not find that it supports a determination that 
the applicant was improperly separated from active duty in 2012.  
Because she was within her first 180 days of active service, she 
was given an entry level separation with uncharacterized 
service.  We find no evidence which would lead us to believe 
that her uncharacterized service was improper or contrary to the 
governing instruction under which it was affected.  We took note 
of AETC/SGPS’ evaluation; however, in view of the above and 
absent persuasive evidence the applicant was denied rights to 
which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or 
appropriate standards were not applied, we agree with the 
opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSOR and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our determination in this case.  
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-2013-01924 in Executive Session on 6 February 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                      , Chair
	                      , Member
	                      , Member



The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01924:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Apr 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/SGSP, dated 10 May 13.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 Jun 13.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13.




                
Chair



4