AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02825
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her uncharacterized entry level separation be changed to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
It is unjust that she did not receive an honorable discharge,
since she was discharged because she injured her knee during
physical training (PT). As a result, she is prevented from
receiving educational benefits, to which she is entitled.
The applicant did not provide any documentation in support of
her request.
The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 13 Nov 07, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 17 Mar 08, the applicant was notified of her commander’s
intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force
under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Air Force Military Training
and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph
5.14. for Erroneous Enlistment. Specifically, for not
disclosing on her Report of Medical History that she had a
history of knee trouble and knee surgery. The applicant
acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, waived
her right to seek counsel and to submit a statement on her own
behalf.
On 18 Mar 08, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the
case file and found it legally sufficient to support separation.
On 19 Mar 08, the discharge authority approved an entry level
separation. On 20 Mar 08, the applicant was separated from the
Air Force for Erroneous Entry (other), after completing four
months and eight days of total active service.
Airmen are given uncharacterized entry level separations when
separation is initiated within the first 180 days continuous
active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined it
would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize
their limited service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states the applicant’s
separation was done in accordance with established policy and
administrative procedures.
According to HQ AETC/SGPS’s letter dated 16 Jul 12, the applicant
stated that both her recruiter and the Chief Medical Officer knew
about the history of her knee and told her not to say anything
and she would be fine. She noted that she did not want to be
considered for a waiver to remain in the service and continue
training.
The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that 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 applicant stated
that both her recruiter and the Military Entrance Processing
Station Chief Medical Officer (CMO) knew about the history of
her knee and told her not to say anything and she would be fine;
however, she noted that she did not want to be considered for a
waiver to remain in the service and continue training. Had this
been followed-up, the CMO of their office would have requested
an orthopedic evaluation to rule out any abnormality concerning
her knee, and if found symptomatic, she would have been found
disqualified for military service.
The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 25 Sep 12, for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has not received a
response.
_________________________________________________________________
2
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 error or injustice. 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. In view of the above and 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 Docket Number
BC-2012-02825 in Executive Session on 5 Feb 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jun 12.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 16 Jul 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 14 Aug 12.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Sep 12.
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02622
Block 28 Narrative Reason for Separation be changed from Fraudulent Entry into Military Service to read Erroneous Enlistment _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The applicants eight-page statement is summarized as follows: 1) During the first meeting with her Air Force recruiter, the applicant disclosed her bee and penicillin allergies. Her recruiter instructed her that she did not need to disclose this information when she...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03567
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03567 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her character of service be changed from uncharacterized to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was counseled that she would receive an administrative discharge for...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00793
After a review of the applicant’s records and medical notes, SGPS found she checked “No”, on the history of asthma, shortness of breath, wheezing, airmen are Further, and use of an inhaler; however, she admitted to having asthma symptoms and was treated with inhalers. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02886
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02886 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His entry level separation be changed to a medical discharge. Had the Air Force known of this condition at the time of his enlistment, he would not have been allowed entry into the military. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00096
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00096 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears that the applicant is requesting to change her narrative reason for separation Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01630
The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicants request to change her narrative reason for separation and separation code. Had the Air Force known of this condition at the time of her enlistment, she would not have been allowed entry into the military. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02525
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02525 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. On 20 Oct 08, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for Erroneous Enlistment. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01441
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01441 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her uncharacterized entry level separation, separation code of JFW which denotes failed medical/physical procurement standards, and reentry (RE) code of 4C (separated for concealment of juvenile records, minority, failure to meet physical standards for...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01705
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates her claim that her medical diagnosis does not reflect a Personality Disorder because Axis II shows None. In support of her response, the applicant submits documentation already included in her original submission. We believe it would be in the interest of equity and justice and in keeping with...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02151
The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicants counsel responded that the BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant is requesting a change to his discharge to Honorable, Medical. It was a year and almost four months from the time of his surgery to his enlistment and the new injury. The applicants counsel asserts the applicants knee...