RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01455
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be change to
honorable {sic}.
Note: His character of service on his DD Form 214, Certificate
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty actually reflects
uncharacterized rather than general (under honorable
conditions).
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was improper because his medical condition was
noted on his enlistment paperwork and he verbalized it to his
recruiter. However, it was used against him in the discharge
proceedings.
He needs his discharge changed in order to continue the
necessary training, education and job placement that will allow
for adequate earnings sufficient enough to sustain a family of
four.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Service Verification
Letter, DVA Certificate of Eligibility, and various other
documents associated with his application.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 18 May 94, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in
the grade of airman basic (E-1).
According to a narrative summary, dated 13 Jul 94, the applicant
was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Jul 93, when the car
he was driving was struck head-on by an 18 wheeler truck and he
was thrown against the dashboard. He informed his recruiter and
it is mentioned on his Standard Form 93, Report of Medical
History that he had recurrent back pain; however, there is no
documentation that his statement regarding his recurrent back
pain was reviewed nor was he examined for it.
A Medical Board Report dated 14 Jul 94, indicates a Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) diagnosed the applicant with Class C,
Mechanical Low Back Pain which Existed Prior To Service (EPTS)
and interfered with technical school training. The board
recommended the applicant be returned to duty for action under
other directives.
On 27 Jul 94, the commander notified the applicant that he was
being recommended for discharge due to his failure to meet
minimum medical standards to join the Air Force. The applicant
acknowledged receipt of the notification letter.
On 29 Jul 94, after consulting with counsel, he waived his
rights to submit a statement in his own behalf. He also stated
that he did not desire retention in the Air Force. On 4 Aug 94,
the discharge authority approved the applicants discharge under
the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of
Airmen.
On 5 Aug 94, the applicant was discharged with an
uncharacterized character of service and narrative reason for
separation of Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards.
He served 2 months and 18 days on active duty.
On 7 Nov 13, the AFBCMR staffed offered the applicant an
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities
since leaving the service (Exhibit C). The applicant stated he
was a squad leader, an honor graduate from Basic Military
Training (BMT) and excelled in whatever tasks he was given until
his injuries. He has degrees in Biology, Chemistry, Public
Health, Theology, and is a certified Public Manager on both the
state and national levels. He had never had any infraction with
the law, outside of minor speeding tickets in the late 1980s
and early 1990. In further support of his request, the
applicant provides several character reference letters
The applicants complete submission, with attachments is at
Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
_
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 find no evidence of an error or injustice
that occurred in the discharge processing. We note the applicant
states that his discharge was improper because his medical
condition was noted on his enlistment paperwork and was used
against him in the discharge proceedings. However, based on the
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation and was within the commander's discretionary
authority. While the applicant requests his general discharge be
upgrade to honorable, the evidence of record reflects that he did
not receive a general discharge; rather his service was
characterized as uncharacterized. Airmen are given entry-level
separation/uncharacterized service characterization when
separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous
active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a
member served less than 180 days of continuous active service, it
would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize
their limited service. Therefore, since the applicant only
served 2 months and 18 days, his uncharacterized character of
service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force
instructions. Therefore, we conclude the applicant has provided
no facts warranting a change to his character of service. 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-01455 in Executive Session on 9 Jan 2014, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-01455 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 Nov 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs
Panel Chair
2
3
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00992
On 18 Aug 95, his training squadron commander notified him he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. The applicant’s argument that no abnormalities were noted at the MEPS or at the time of in-service examination is without merit and his assertion there was no complaint of back pain prior to service is in conflict with evidence of the service record. An airman may be discharged for fraudulent entry based on the procurement of a fraudulent enlistment or...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02719
The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) narrative states he began experiencing back pain after completing weight training for his Air Force Specialty. On 12 Apr 95, the applicant was diagnosed with lower back pain that existed prior to service (EPTS) and spondylolysis and a recommendation for back exercises, continuation of medication and entry-level separation with follow-up with a civilian orthopedic physician. On 18 Apr 95, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01998
Since his enlistment was considered fraudulent, his total active service was non-creditable. Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. MICHAEL GALLOGLY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-01998 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: The pertinent...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03113
On 12 May 2014, the discharge authority approved the recommendation that the applicant be discharged. DPSOR did not find any evidence of any errors or injustices in the discharge process. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 June 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-1986-01455; BC-1996-00399
His records be corrected to reflect he was retired for physical disability for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and/or major depression, rather than discharged for a personality disorder. Dr. A provides a separate opinion in the applicant’s case, concluding the applicant does not have a personality disorder, and never had a personality disorder. In fact, contrary to the circumstances in the noted case, Counsel has argued that the applicant’s service over the course of the years...
AF | BCMR | CY1986 | BC 1986 01455; BC 1996 00399
Dr. A provides a separate opinion in the applicants case, concluding the applicant does not have a personality disorder, and never had a personality disorder. In fact, contrary to the circumstances in the noted case, Counsel has argued that the applicants service over the course of the years between his service in Vietnam and his adjustment disorder diagnosis was impeccable and has presented no evidence to indicate there were similar circumstances at play in the applicants case. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-1986-01455; BC-1996-00399
Dr. A provides a separate opinion in the applicants case, concluding the applicant does not have a personality disorder, and never had a personality disorder. In fact, contrary to the circumstances in the noted case, Counsel has argued that the applicants service over the course of the years between his service in Vietnam and his adjustment disorder diagnosis was impeccable and has presented no evidence to indicate there were similar circumstances at play in the applicants case. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05662
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. The remaining...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01139
The reason for the action was that he received a medical narrative summary, dated 1 April 2002, which found that he did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist because of a history of recurrent shoulder dislocation and pain. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04733
On 24 Jun 09, the applicant declined a waiver to stay in the Air Force and was processed for entry level separation with an uncharacterized character of service. The complete BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 Aug 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). ...