RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05662

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 




APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her service characterization, as reflected in Block 24 of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from “not applicable” to “honorable.”  



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Reentry (RE) Code 2C gives her an “honorable” status, so it should be reflected in Block 24.  Being “honorably discharged” from the military would give her family additional preference points used to determine their place on the housing authority list, and make a huge difference on whether or not they qualify for a home.

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



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 16 Oct 84.  

On 13 Nov 84, a medical evaluation board (MEB) convened and found that the applicant did not meet minimum standards for enlistment because of a recurrent right knee pain (possible chondromalacia patella), status-post previous knee injury.  

On 16 Nov 84, the applicant’s commander notified her that based on the findings of the MEB, he was recommending her discharge for erroneous enlistment - failure to meet Air Force physical standards.  Later that day, the applicant was briefed by legal counsel, waived her right to submit statements, and acknowledged that if her commander’s recommendation for her discharge was approved, her separation would be described as an Entry-Level Separation, she would not receive any disability retirement or severance pay, and she would not be eligible to enlist in the Air Force as long as the disqualifying enlistment defect exists.  

On 20 Nov 84, the applicant was furnished an entry-level separation with service characterized as “N/A.” and credited with one month and five days of active service.   

On 23 Jan 14, AFPC/DPSOR administratively corrected the applicant’s DD Form 214, Block 24, to read “uncharacterized,” instead of “N/A,” and issued the applicant a new DD Form 214.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant contends the RE code 2C gives her an honorable status, this is not the case.  The RE code 2C is warranted for both entry-level separations (ELS) with uncharacterized character of service and involuntary separations with an honorable character of service, per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, chapter 3.  She received an RE code of 2C for her ELS without characterization of service as directed by the 37 PRG/CC (discharge authority).  On 23 Jan 14, AFPC/DPSOR validated applicant's discharge processing and stated her character of service should be listed as "uncharacterized."   The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in reference to her RE code.  

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

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request that her character of service be changed to "honorable."  The medical authorities concluded that the member had a pre-existing condition that would have precluded her from joining the Air Force had this condition been made known at the time of her enlistment.  This condition did not meet Air Force standards and it was determined that it was not permanently aggravated by training beyond the normal progression of the ailment.  Since this falls under the criteria in AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, section 5-13c (Air Force guidance in use at the time of discharge) under the category of Erroneous Enlistments, both the commander and the discharge authority initiated discharge procedures as per the instruction.  Hence, both the narrative reason for separation and SPD code are correct as reflected on her DD Form 214.  The applicant's service characterization “uncharacterized” is correct as reflected on her DD Form 214 (a/o 23 Jan 14).  Airmen are given ELS with uncharacterized service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, the uncharacterized character of service on her DD Form 214 is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.  Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the type of separation, SPD code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of her discharge.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/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 21 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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 warranting corrective action by this Board with regard to the applicant’s character of service.  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 (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an injustice with respect to her character of service.  We do note that AFPC/DPSOR administratively corrected the applicant’s DD Form 214 to reflect her character of service is “uncharacterized,” instead of “not applicable.”  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any relief beyond that rendered administratively. 



THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2013-05662 in Executive Session on 13 Nov 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Dec 12, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 23 Feb 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 23 Jan 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jul 14.