RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03479

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

     Her separation code “JFC” which denotes “Erroneous entry 
(other)” be changed.  

     Her Reentry (RE) code “2C” which denotes “Entry Level 
Separation (ELS) without characterization of service” be changed 
to allow reenlistment in the Armed Forces.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The medical condition for which she was discharged was incurred 
while in service and no longer exists.  It should not affect 
future military performance.

The applicant provides no rationale as to why the Board should 
consider it in the interest of justice to consider her untimely 
application.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 Mar 07, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 1 Aug 07, she was notified of her commander’s intent to 
recommend she be discharged for erroneous enlistment In Accordance 
With (IAW) AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 
paragraph 5.14.  The specific reason for the action was a SF 600, 
Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 10 Jul 07, which 
states the applicant was diagnosed with leg pain that existed 
prior to entering the military.  Had the Air Force known of the 
condition, she would not have been allowed entry into the 
military.      

On 1 Aug 07, the applicant acknowledged the discharge 
recommendation, her right to consult counsel and submit statements 
in her own behalf.   

On 2 Aug 07, the assistant staff judge advocate found the 
discharge recommendation legally sufficient and recommended she be 
separated with an ELS.

On 9 Aug 07, the discharge authority approved the recommendation 
to discharg her with an ELS without probation or rehabilitation.

On 10 Aug 07, she was discharged with a narrative reason for 
separation of “Erroneous entry (other)” and a RE code of “2C.”   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicant’s requests to change 
her separation and RE codes.  Based on the documentation on file 
in the master personnel records, the discharge was administered 
properly 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.  
Additionally, the applicant’s request is not timely filed within 
three years of discovery.  It is not in the interest of justice to 
waive the failure to timely file.

The applicant completed Basic Military Training (BMT) and was in 
security forces training when she was seen at the Reid Clinic on 
10 Jul 07 where the diagnoses of chronic leg pain was made.  The 
pain was so severe she could not continue in training.  The 
condition is disqualifying for military service and she stated she 
understood the diagnoses and the action being taken.  
Subsequently, she was processed for an ELS.  

A complete copy of the SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.  The 
applicant has not filed a timely petition.  It has been seven 
years since she was discharged from the service and she did not 
provide a reason why the application was not submitted within 
three years of her discharge.  Based on the documentation on file 
in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the type 
of separation, Separation Program Designator (SPD) code,  
narrative reason for separation and character of service were 
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.
  
The medical authorities concluded the applicant 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.  
Since this falls under the criteria of AFI 36-3208, the discharge 
authority initiated the discharge IAW the instruction.  Therefore 
the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as 
indicated.  Airmen are given an ELS/uncharacterized service 
characterization when separation is initiated in the first 
180 days of continuous active service, it would be unfair to the 
member and the service to characterize their limited service.  
Therefore, the uncharacterized character of service which resulted 
from the erroneous enlistment on her DD Form 214 is correct and 
IAW DOD and Air Force instructions. 

A complete copy of the DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change 
her RE code.  The applicant infers her medical condition no longer 
exists and wants to reenter the military.  However, she does not 
provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to her 
“2C” RE code.  If the applicant is otherwise eligible and now 
medically cleared, a waiver from the service that medically 
cleared her would be more appropriate than changing her RE code.  

A complete copy of the DPSAO evaluation is at Exhibit E.   


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 10 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

After careful consideration of the applicant’s requests and the 
available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. 
The applicant did not file within three years after the alleged 
error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United 
States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air 
Force Board for Correction of Military Records.   The applicant 
has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing on a 
matter now dating back over seven years, which has greatly 
complicated the Board’s ability to determine the merits of the 
application.  We are also not persuaded that the record raises 
issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the 
merits.  Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of 
justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely 
manner.  


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the 
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision 
of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2014-03479 in Executive Session on 14 Apr 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 14, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 6 Nov 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 17 Dec 14.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 22 Jan 15.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 15.