RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02810
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reentry (RE) code of “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 
enlistments) be changed to a code that would allow him to 
reenlist.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has been physically capable of fulfilling DoD standards since 
his discharge.  He desires his code be changed to a more 
favorable RE code.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a DD Form 293, 
Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States, documents extracted from his military 
personnel records, service medical records, and other 
documentation.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 March 
2008.

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208.  The specific reason 
was a medical narrative summary dated 9 May 2008 that found the 
applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist.  He 
should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because he 
has pes planus.




He was advised of his rights in this matter and elected not to 
consult with counsel and elected not to submit a statement on 
his own behalf.  In a legal review of the case file, the 
assistant staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient 
and recommended discharge.  The discharge authority concurred 
with the recommendation and directed an entry level separation.  
The applicant was discharged on 19 May 2008.  He served 1 month 
and 25 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states the applicant 
received an erroneous RE code on his DD Form 214 of 4C.  His 
correct RE code is 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable 
discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of 
service) as required by AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, 
chapter 3, based on his entry level separation with 
uncharacterized character of service.  The RE code 2C applies to 
all entry level separations without characterizations of service 
regardless of whether the discharge is voluntary or involuntary.

RE code 2C is not driven by a medical condition and AETC/SG 
(medical community) does not have authority or any valid input 
as to the correctness or recommended changes to the RE code.  
They are qualified to recommend applicant be given an 
opportunity to be medically screened or cleared for reentry into 
military service based on his current or future medical status 
(if otherwise eligible).  As such, a waiver of the RE code 2C 
from recruiting services based on medical community’s 
recommendation of meeting medical requirements would be more 
appropriate than change his RE code.  A waiver of the RE code 
would identify prior circumstances for screening instead of 
circumventing aspects of his prior service.

AFPC/DPSOY will provide the applicant a corrected copy of his 
DD Form 214 with an RE code of 2C, unless otherwise directed by 
the board.

The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AETC/SGPS recommends approval.  SGPS support a change to allow 
the applicant to re-physical and be reviewed for a medical 
waiver.  SGPS states based on the documentation on file in the 
applicant’s records, SGPS finds the separation was done in 
accordance with established policy and administrative 
procedures.  Since the condition has reportedly been resolved 
there is the possibility he could be considered for a new waiver 
to enlist in the military.  He would need a current podiatry 
evaluation with release to full unrestricted activities, and a 
new MEPS Physical Evaluation (PE).

The SGPS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 6 December 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office. 

________________________________________________________________
_

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 an error or injustice.  The 
applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his 
contentions were duly noted, to include the differing opinions 
of the Air Force evaluators.  However, we do not find the 
applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in 
support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the 
rationale provided by AFPC/DPSOA.  We note that AFPC/DPSOA will 
correct the applicant’s RE Code to 2C to appropriately reflect 
his entry level separation with uncharacterized service.  We 
agree with this correction.  However, with the revised RE code 
of 2C, and since the condition has reportedly been resolved, 
there is the possibility he could be considered for a new waiver 
to enlist in the military.  He would need a current podiatry 
evaluation with a release to full unrestricted activities, and a 
new MEPS PE.  Therefore, relief beyond that already 
administratively granted is not warranted.  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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-02810 in Executive Session on 18 February 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 June 2013, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 23 July 2013.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 13 November 2013.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 December 2013.





4


3