RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04008

XXXXXXXXXX		COUNSEL: NONE

			HEARING DESIRED: YES



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Reentry (RE) code of 2C, which denotes "Involuntarily 
separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation 
without characterization of service” be changed.

2.  Her narrative reason for separation [Fraudulent Entry into 
Military Service] and the corresponding separation code of “JDA” 
be changed. 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was separated from the Air Force after she experienced minor 
foot pain in the first week of basic training.  She never had any 
serious problems with her feet.  Post service medical evaluations 
confirm that she is fully capable to perform to the physical 
standards of the military.  She was discharged for having a 
preexisting medical condition.

Although doctors recently confirmed she had flat feet, this 
condition does not affect her physical performance.  She has not 
done anything fraudulent and would like to serve her country and 
asks the Board to favorably consider her requests.

In support of her requests, the applicant provides copies of a 
Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board letter, 
college transcripts, Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery 
results, and various other documents related to her requests.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 November 2011, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force.

On 9 December 2011, the applicant’s commander notified her that he 
was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and 
AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for “Fraudulent 
Entry.”  The specific reason for this action was she intentionally 
concealed a prior service medical condition, which if revealed, 
could have resulted in rejection of her enlistment.  The commander 
further noted that the Air Force discovered that the applicant had 
a detailed history of chest tightness and foot pain.

On 9 December 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification and waived her right to consult with legal 
counsel or to submit statements in her behalf.

On 13 December 2011, she received an entry-level separation with 
uncharacterized service.  The narrative reason for separation 
reflected on her DD Form 214 is “Fraudulent Entry into Military 
Service.”


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  On 8 December 2011, the applicant 
signed a statement indicating that her history of chest tightness 
had been going on since she was 12 years of age.  She further 
indicated that her history of foot pain began at 15 years of age. 
These admissions demonstrated a pre-existing condition that she 
was aware of prior to entering the military.  Therefore, 
fraudulent enlistment was the correct basis for discharge.  Airmen 
are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service 
characterization when separation is initiated in the first 
180 days 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, her 
uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance with DoD and 
Air Force instructions.

The complete DPSOR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/SG recommends denial.  The applicant had difficulty with the 
timed run and was sent for a medical evaluation where she received 
a duty limiting profile that restricted her from the run.  In a 
handwritten document she states she has had foot pain since age 
15 which is extremely painful due to exercise and marching; she 
also explained that she has had exercise induced chest tightness 
since age 12.  Neither condition is listed on the entrance exam. 
The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or 
injustice occurred in the processing of her discharge.  Based on 
the documentation on file in the applicant’s records, her 
separation was done in accordance with established policy and 
administrative procedures.

The complete SG evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change 
her RE code.  The applicant states she does not have any issues 
with her feet and is fully capable of performing military physical 
standards.  However, she provides no evidence of an error or 
injustice in reference to her RE code 2C.  If she is otherwise 
eligible and medically cleared, a waiver from the service that 
medically clears her for entry would be more appropriate than 
changing her RE code.  The applicant’s RE code of 2C is required 
per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the United States Air Force, 
based on her involuntary discharge with an entry level separation.  
She served on active duty from 15 November 2011 to 13 December 
2011; however, she was not entitled to any creditable service due 
to being separated under fraudulent entry guidance.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Her discharge for fraudulent reasons is unfair. Until recently she 
never saw a doctor for foot pain.  The podiatrist she recently saw 
determined that she had flat feet; however, this condition does 
not affect her performance.  During basic training, she was issued 
male combat boots because they ran out of women’s boots in her 
size.  The individual who issued her the male boots recommended 
she wear a larger size because the boots would shrink.  However, 
the incorrect male size caused her foot pain.  The chest tightness 
she complained about occurred simply from being out of shape.  She 
was never asthmatic or had any other type of lung deficiency.  She 
is fit to join the Air Force.  She recently completed a 29-day 
Army Reserve Officer Training Corps course, which required 
attendees to be in top physical shape.  Being a member of the 
military is a priority for her.  She can guarantee she will exceed 
the standards required to succeed in the military.  She pleads 
that the Board change her RE code so she will be eligible to 
reenlist.  In further support of her requests, the applicant 
provides copies of a memorandum from her podiatrist, and character 
letters.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
G. 


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. While the 
applicant's assertions that her discharge for fraudulent reasons 
is unfair and her flat feet do not affect her performance are 
noted, she has not provided substantial evidence which, in our 
opinion, successfully refutes the assessment of her case by the 
Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR).  Therefore, we 
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPR 
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision 
that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof of 
either an error or an injustice.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.


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 this application in 
Executive Session on 9 June 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

       , Panel Chair
       , Member
       , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2014-04008 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 September 2014, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 5 November 2014, 
                 w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 17 December 2014.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, 20 January 2015.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 March 2015.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 March 2015, w/atchs