RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03960

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her reentry (RE) code "2C" (Involuntarily separated with an 
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without service 
characterization of service) be changed to “R1” (sic) (First 
Term Airman selected for reenlistment under the SRP) to allow 
her to reenter military service.

2.  Her last name be changed to reflect “XXXXXX” rather than 
“XXXXX.”

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While on active duty she injured her left foot and believes the 
slow recovery from the injury, personal issues impacted her 
ability to satisfactorily complete physical training and 
maintain physical standards. 

Since her divorce has been finalized, she wants her records to 
reflect her maiden name.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 3 Jun 08, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

On 20 Jan 09, a Notification of Change in Service Member’s 
official records was initiated changing the applicant’s last 
name from XXXX to XXXXX due to her getting married.

On 18 Sep 09, the applicant was evaluated for an injury to her 
left foot.  She was diagnosed with a crush injury to the left 
foot without evidence of fractures.  She was prescribed rest, 
elevation and ice for swelling for 72 hours, weight bearing as 
tolerated with gradual increase in activity.  She received a 
temporary profile for no impact sports, no jumping, no running, 
in two weeks she could start using the elliptical and/or 
bicycle. 

The applicant presented for follow-up in Oct 09 and Dec 09 with 
complaints of continued pain which resulted in an extension of 
her profile restrictions.

On 23 Dec 09, the applicant reported continued pain in the left 
foot with some improvement, numbness with pressure and prolonged 
standing.  Her profile was extended for four weeks along with a 
referral to the Health and Wellness Clinic for an exercise 
prescription.  The applicant was informed she could participate 
with the elliptical or walk-run. 

On 15 Apr 10, the applicant underwent x-rays for her continued 
foot pain.  The x-rays revealed no evidence of acute or healing 
fracture of the foot.

On 4 Jun 10, it was noted the applicant continued to experience 
foot pain as a result of “slowly healing foot trauma.”  She was 
advised to continue range of motion exercise and to use shoe 
inserts.  She was prohibited from “impact involving the left 
foot” and running over 100 meters until 30 Aug 10.  

On 7 Jul 10, the applicant participated in a fitness assessment 
(FA) and attained an unsatisfactory score.  Based on the 
applicant’s fitness score sheet it appears she failed to achieve 
a minimum passing score of 70.

On 5 Oct 10, the applicant participated in an FA and attained an 
unsatisfactory score.  Based on the applicant’s fitness score 
sheet it appears she failed the run portion of the FA.

On 27 Dec 10, the applicant participated in an FA and attained 
an unsatisfactory score.  Based on the applicant’s fitness score 
sheet it appears she failed the run portion of the FA.

The applicant received a referral Enlisted Performance Report 
(EPR) rendered for the period ending 2 Feb 11 for failing to 
maintain current fitness standards.  The applicant noted in her 
response to the referral report that she believes she would have 
passed the run portion of the FA if the climate had been 
conducive for running outdoors.

On 3 Jan 12, the applicant participated in an FA and attained an 
unsatisfactory score.  Based on the applicant’s fitness score 
sheet it appears she failed the run and sit-ups portions of the 
FA.

The applicant received a referral Enlisted Performance Report 
(EPR) rendered for the period ending 2 Feb 12 for failing to 
meet minimum standards on her annual FA.  The applicant 
acknowledged receipt and elected not to provide a response to 
the referral report.

Under the provision of AFI-36-2905_AFGM3, Air Force Guidance 
Memorandum for AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, unit commanders 
must initiate (enlisted Airmen) or recommend (officers) 
administrative discharge after airman has received four 
unsatisfactory fitness assessments scores in a 24-month period; 
failed to demonstrate significant improvement (as determined by 
the commander) despite the reconditioning period; and has been 
evaluated by a military health care provider to rule out medical 
conditions precluding the members from achieving a passing 
score.

On 27 Feb 12, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was 
recommending her discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory 
performance:  failure to meet minimum fitness standards.  The 
specific reason for the discharge action was the applicant 
failed four physical fitness assessments between 7 Jul 10 and 
3 Jan 12, for which she received two letters of reprimand (LOR) 
and unfavorable information file (UIF).  In addition, the 
applicant received another LOR for failure to go to appointed 
place of duty, three letters of counseling (LOCs) for failure to 
go to appointed place of duty and failing an inspection.  The 
recommendation for discharge noted the applicant was evaluated 
by a military medical provider who determined there were no 
medical conditions that precluded the applicant from achieving a 
passing score on her fitness assessments.

On 29 Feb 12, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and waived her right to submit a statement.

On 6 Mar 12, the legal office reviewed the case and found it 
legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the 
applicant be furnished an honorable discharge without probation 
and rehabilitation.

On 6 Mar 12, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
furnished an honorable discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation.  The applicant was so discharged on 16 Mar 12 
and was credited with 3 years, 9 months and 14 days of total 
active service.

On 25 Sep 13, AFPC/DPSIRP notified the applicant that her 
request to change her surname was not possible because changes 
to former service members records are only permitted when there 
is evidence the data was erroneously recorded by the Air Force.  
A review of her records revealed she served and was discharged 
under her married name and there was no evidence that her name 
was recorded erroneously. 

________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial noting the applicant has not 
provided any evidence of an error or injustice regarding her RE 
code.  The applicant indicated she requested an early release 
and was given an early discharge; however, she was involuntarily 
discharged for unsatisfactory performance due to failing to meet 
minimum fitness standards.  The applicant received the 
appropriate RE code based on her being involuntarily discharged 
with service characterized as honorable. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial noting there is 
no evidence of an error or injustice to warrant a change to the 
applicant’s RE code.  Under the current policy if the applicant 
had been a current member of the military and failed her FAs it 
is probable that she may have received at least an temporary 
exemption from the aerobic portion of testing, and may have been 
allowed to continue to serve.  However, if she was prohibited 
from taking any one part of the FA for a 12 month period, she 
would have been considered for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) 
and a possible medical discharge.  Based on the applicant’s 
record, her primary care provider was in a position to recommend 
exemption from the walk or run portion of the testing.

The applicant is requesting an RE code to allow her to reenter 
military service.  Under the Department of Defense Instruction 
(DODI) 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, 
or Induction in the Military Services, any current deformities, 
disease, or chronic joint pain of the pelvic region, thigh, 
lower leg, knee, ankle and or foot that have interfered with 
function to such a degree as to prevent the individual from 
following a physically active vocation in civilian life, or that 
would interfere with walking, running, weight bearing, or the 
satisfactory completion of training or military duty are 
disqualifying for military service.  However, the instruction 
does not discuss any exceptions or waivers to this policy.  The 
applicant has been disqualified for continued military service 
due to fitness failures and had a potentially disqualifying 
medical condition involving her left foot; both which could 
result in a 2C RE code.  There has been no evidence of a 
currently normally functioning and asymptomatic left foot in 
support of changing the applicant's RE code.  Additionally, 
while it is known the Military Department is an important, 
willing, and respected "employer," there remains the uncertain 
return on investment, the requirement to meet physical 
standards, and to endure the rigors of military service; to 
include assignments under austere operational conditions.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at 
Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Her enlistment documents should have revealed she enlisted under 
the name “XXXX.”  Her name changed after she got married.  Since 
her divorce has been finalized she wants her all her records to 
reflect her maiden name.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 an error or injustice to warrant 
changing the applicant’s RE code.  We took notice of the 
applicant’s complete submission, to include her rebuttal 
response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no 
evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge 
process or the assignment of the contested RE code.  The 
applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to 
believe that her discharge was improper or contrary to the 
provisions of the governing directive, or that the RE code 
issued in conjunction with her discharge was erroneous or 
inappropriately assigned.  The applicant received the 
appropriate RE code of 2C based on her involuntary discharge.  
Therefore, in the absence of a preponderance of the evidence to 
support changing the applicant’s RE code, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the requested relief.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, we believe it would be in the 
interest of justice to change the applicant’s surname to her 
maiden name.  While we note the comments of AFPC/DPSIRP 
indicating that relief should be denied because the applicant’s 
records contain no documentation to substantiate a change in her 
surname prior to the end of her enlistment, we believe a 
preponderance of the evidence substantiates that corrective 
action is warranted.  In this respect, we note the applicant 
enlisted in the Air Force under her maiden name, and although 
her name changed during her enlistment due to marriage, the 
marriage was short-lived.  Further, she was undergoing divorce 
proceedings prior to being discharged.  While the applicant’s 
divorce was not finalized until after she was discharged, we 
find it more likely than not that the delay in the applicant’s 
divorce proceedings was through no fault of her own.  Given the 
unique circumstances of this case, including the shortness of 
her marriage and the timing of her divorce, we believe justice 
is best served by granting this portion of her request.  
Therefore, we recommend correcting her official military record 
to as indicated below.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to reflect that her 
name, as reflected on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty, dated 16 March 2012, be corrected to 
reflect “XXXX XXXX XXXXX,” rather than “XXXX XXXX XXXXXX.”
________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-03960 in Executive Session on 31 Jul 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Sep 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 29 Oct 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
	            25 Mar 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jun 14, w/atchs.