RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00621

		COUNSEL:  NO

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His entry-level separation with uncharacterized service be 
changed to reflect an Honorable discharge.

2.  His narrative reason for separation be changed from 
“Erroneous Entry” to something more appropriate. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There were no misleading or untrue statements in his enlistment 
contract and his service should be characterized as honorable.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 28 Jun 10.

On 5 Nov 10, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for erroneous 
enlistment.  The specific reason for the action was the 
applicant was diagnosed with back pain and this condition 
existed prior to him entering the military.  Had the Air Force 
known of the severity of this condition prior to his enlistment, 
he would not have been allowed entry into the military.

On 5 Nov 10, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, 
his right to consult with legal counsel, and submit statements 
in his own behalf and, on 5 Nov 10, he waived his right to 
consult counsel and submit statements in his behalf.

On 15 Nov 10, the legal office found the case legally sufficient 
and, on 17 Nov 10, the discharge authority directed the 
applicant be furnished an entry-level separation. 
On 22 Nov 10, the applicant was furnished an entry-level 
separation with uncharacterized service with a narrative reason 
for separation of “Erroneous Entry (Other).”  He was credited 
with 4 months and 25 days of total active service.

On 26 Apr 12, according to documentation provided by the 
applicant, the Department of Veterans Affairs determined his 
back pain and right knee pain was service connected and granted 
him a 20 percent disability rating for his back pain and a ten 
percent disability rating for his knee pain.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility which is attached at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  Based on the documentation on file in 
the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the 
service characterization, was appropriately administered and 
within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Airmen are 
given entry-level separation with uncharacterized service when 
separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous 
service.  Therefore, his character of service, RE code, and 
narrative reason for separation are correct and in accordance 
with DoD and Air Force instructions.

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant argues that if there were any health issues or 
concerns on his behalf, the Military Entrance Processing Station 
(MEPS) would have identified them.  Also, he would not have been 
able to pass the rigorous physical test administered by the 
MEPS.  He asserts that he was injury free upon his arrival to 
basic training and throughout his medical check.  He was also 
found to have two other medical conditions by the medical staff 
on base that was service related.  He was not informed of his 
right to obtain counsel in connection with his discharge 
proceedings; in fact, his command staff recommended not 
obtaining counsel as there were no grounds for an issue with a 
medical discharge.  He is currently undergoing medical treatment 
for his service connected injuries.

A complete copy of the Applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
We note the applicant’s assertion that he was not informed of 
his right to counsel during his discharge proceedings; however, 
his military personnel records contain copies of the 
notification letter which specifically describe his right to 
counsel, as well as documentation indicating the applicant 
specifically waived his right to consult with legal counsel.  
Other than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence that 
would lead us to believe that he was denied rights to which he 
was entitled, there was an abuse of discretionary authority, or 
that appropriate standards were not applied.  While the 
applicant provides copies of documents from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) granting him service connection for his 
back condition, the DVA is free to make such determinations and 
such a determination does not invalidate the Air Force’s initial 
determination that the applicant’s back pain existed prior to 
his military service, rendering his enlistment in the Air Force 
erroneous.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we conclude 
that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on 
his request.  

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-00621 in Executive Session on 31 Oct 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		              , Panel Chair
		              , Member
		              , Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-00621 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 26 Mar 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair

4