RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01758
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The type of separation he received (entry level separation) 
be changed.

2.  His Reentry (RE) code of 4C which denotes “Concealment of 
juvenile records; or minority, or failure to meet physical 
standards; or failure to obtain 9.0 reading grade;” be changed. 
(Administratively Corrected)

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He does not have the medical condition for which he was 
discharged.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of a 
radiology report.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Jun 2011, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force.

On 6 Sep 2011, his commander notified him that he was 
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations 
and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman.  The 
reason for this action was he did not meet minimum medical 
standards to enlist.  He should not have been allowed to join 
the Air Force because he had osteoarthritis of the knee. 

On 6 Sep 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification and waived his rights to consult with 
legal counsel or to submit statements in his behalf.
 
On 7 Sep 2011, he received an entry-level separation with 
uncharacterized service.  The narrative reason for separation 
was “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards.”  He served 
on active duty for three months and seven days.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these 
facts in this Record of Proceedings.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends denial.  SGPS states that the applicant did 
not provide a current orthopedic evaluation noting that the 
diagnoses made in Basic Military Training (BMT) has resolved or 
was in error.  Therefore the original diagnoses remains valid 
and the findings unchanged. Based on the documentation on file 
in the applicant’s records, SGPS finds the separation was done 
in accordance with established policy and administrative 
procedures.  On 18 Aug 2011, the applicant was seen at the 
clinic for knee pain which he states he did not have until he 
entered BMT.  He was diagnosed with osteoarthritis of his knee. 
He declined that his case be reviewed for an AETC/SGPS waiver to 
remain in BMT.  Subsequently he was processed for an entry level 
separation.

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his narrative reason for separation.  The applicant did 
not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices 
that occurred in the discharge processing.  He should not have 
been allowed to join the Air Force because of his medical 
condition.  Had the Air Force known of this condition at the 
time of his enlistment, he would not have been allowed entry 
into the military.  The documentation on file in the master 
personnel records supports the basis for discharge and his 
entry level service characterization.  The discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.

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 
continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and 
the service to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, 
his narrative reason for separation is correct and in 
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends his RE code be changed to “2C,” which 
denotes "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or 
entry level separation without characterization of service."  
The RE code is driven by his entry level separation with an 
uncharacterized character of service.  AFPC/DPSOY will provide 
the applicant a corrected copy of his DD Form 214 with an RE 
code of 2C, unless otherwise directed by the Board. 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 5 Aug 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response 
(Exhibits 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 error or injustice to warrant 
changing the type of separation the applicant received.  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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  Therefore, other than the administrative 
correction to change his RE code to 2C, 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-
2013-01758 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 2013, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/SGPS, dated 29 Apr 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 May 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 Jul 2013.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 2013.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair

2


2