RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03603

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation of “Fraudulent entry into 
military service” be changed to “General separation.”

His Reentry (RE) Code of “2C” which denotes “Involuntary 
separation honorable discharge or entry level separation without 
characterization of service” be changed to designate a general 
separation. 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was advised by his recruiter to only disclose medically 
treated injuries and therefore did not list his right leg quad 
injury.  

He injured his right leg quad muscle while performing the weekly 
run at Basic Military Training (BMT) and was asked if he had 
injured his leg before enlistment.  He advised the doctor that 
he had injured it about a year and a half prior to his 
enlistment and was asked to write a letter explaining the 
situation.  He was then given the option to stay in medical hold 
until his leg was healed so he could be recycled back into 
training or he could request to go home.  He elected to go home 
since the doctor said it could be two to three months before his 
leg healed.  He was told he could reenlist after 6 months.  He 
did not lie to gain entry into the military and followed orders.  

The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to 
consider his untimely application as he is applying for 
employment with law enforcement agencies and this could affect 
the hiring process.  

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





STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 Apr 02, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. 

On 16 May 02, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending he be discharged.  The basis for the recommendation 
was fraudulent entry In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-3208, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section 5C, 
Defective Enlistments, paragraph 5.15.  The specific reason for 
the recommendation was that the applicant intentionally 
concealed a prior service medical condition.  It was discovered 
the applicant had right partial pectus fomoris rupture and the 
medical condition could have rendered him ineligible to enlist 
in the Air Force.  The applicant was advised of his right to 
consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf.

On 16 May 02, the applicant acknowledged the discharge 
recommendation and waived his right to consult counsel and 
submit statements in his own behalf.   

On 20 May 02, the assistant staff judge advocate found the 
recommendation for discharge legally sufficient.

On 20 May 02, the separation authority approved the discharge 
recommendation.

On 22 May 02, the applicant received an Entry Level Separation 
(ELS) with an uncharacterized character of service.  His 
narrative reason for separation is “Fraudulent entry into 
military service” and his RE code is “2C.”


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  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.  DPSOR found no evidence of any errors or 
injustices in the discharge processing.  

The applicant’s Chronological Record of Medical Care states that 
on or about 3 May 02, he reported to the hospital with an injury 
to his leg while attempting to run during BMT.  At the visit, he 
reported he had injured the same leg in the same area while 
playing softball approximately one year prior and that it took 
eight to nine months to heal.  He was not treated for the injury 
prior to coming into military service because he was not covered 
for insurance.  He further stated that he was told by his 
recruiter to only divulge a history of illnesses or injuries 
that were seen and treated by a doctor.  The report concluded 
the applicant intentionally failed to disclose the pre-existing 
condition prior to entering the military and recommended that he 
be separated.

The applicant was only on active duty for one month; therefore, 
his character of service is correct on his DD Form 214,   
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  Airmen 
are given ELS with uncharacterized service characterization when 
separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous 
active service.  The 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 uncharacterized character of service is correct 
and IAW DOD and Air Force instructions.

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

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his RE code.  The applicant does not provide any evidence 
of an error or injustice.  He is asking for a RE code designated 
for a general separation but there is no such RE code.  Airmen 
are separated for specific reasons and the RE code is based on 
numerous variables or factors that lead to the appropriate RE 
code.  His correct RE code is “2C” based on his involuntary 
discharge and uncharacterized character of service.  He served 
on active duty from 18 Apr to 22 May 02 but was not credited 
with any active duty service due to being separated under the 
fraudulent entry guidance.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 17 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


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 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 opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis 
for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
requested relief.


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-2014-03603 in Executive Session on 13 May 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Sep 14, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR dated 14 Jan 15.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 Feb 15.  
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 15.