RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03259
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  YES

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reentry (RE) code of 4C which denotes “Concealment of 
Juvenile records; or minority, or failure to meet physical 
standards; or failure to obtain 9.0 reading grade;” be changed 
to allow her to reenlist.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

She was told that her discharge was based on a food allergy 
related to shell-fish.  However, she was not given an 
opportunity to see an allergist.  After her discharge, allergy 
tests verified that she did not have an allergy.

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty; letters from her physician and various other documents 
related to her request.

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

______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 Jan 2013, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force.

In an undated letter, the applicant’s commander notified her 
that he was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force 
under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and 
Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen.  The specific reason for this action was she did not 
meet minimum medical standards to enlist.  She should not have 
been allowed to join the Air Force because she had a systemic 
allergy to food with anaphylaxis.

?
On 3 Mar 2013, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification, consulted with legal counsel and 
submitted statements in her behalf.

On 15 Mar 2013, she received an entry-level separation with 
uncharacterized service.  The narrative reason for separation is 
“Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards.”  She served on 
active duty for two months and one day.

______________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends denial.  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.  The applicant was found to have a 
food allergy during Basic Military Training.  Her case was 
reviewed for waiver but was denied due to her food allergy 
history.  Her file notes a reaction to sesame seed, tree nuts, 
shell fish, some vegetables, and fruits.  She was prescribed an 
epi-pen to carry at all times.  The file included a 14 Sep 
2011 skin test with several positive findings.  On 20 May 2013, 
after her separation she saw an allergist and included his 
letter noting there was no reaction when she ingested shrimp.  
Even though there were many positive findings on the 14 Sep 
2011 testing, no other food testing was done. She did not 
disclose her history or skin testing to the Military Entrance 
Processing Station because she did not feel she had any food 
allergies. Based on her history she was subsequently processed 
for an entry level separation.

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change her narrative reason for separation.  Based on the 
documentation on file in the 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.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  However, they recommend the 
applicant’s RE code be changed to “2C,” which denotes 
“Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry 
level separation without characterization of service.”  The RE 
code 2C is required based on the entry level separation with an 
uncharacterized character of service and the applicant does not 
provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to 
her RE code.  AFPC/DPSOY will provide the applicant a corrected 
copy of her DD Form 214 with an RE code of 2C, unless otherwise 
directed by the Board. 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 Nov 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response 
(Exhibits 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 to warrant 
changing the type of separation the applicant received.  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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  Therefore, other than the administrative 
correction to change the applicant’s RE code to 2C, we find no 
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(s) 
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-
2013-03414 in Executive Session on 6 May 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

 , Panel Chair
 , Member
 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 22 Aug 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 13 Sep 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 31 Oct 2013.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Nov 2013.




                                    
                                   Panel Chair