RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01084 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His leg injury sustained on active duty be changed from non-
service connected to service connected. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was mistreated for his injury. 

 

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 8 January 2008, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force in the grade of airman basic. 

 

The record reflects the applicant suffered a fracture of the left 
ankle as a result of falling down stairs. He was treated with 
casting followed by a short-leg walking brace. The radiographic 
evaluation of his injury demonstrated osteochondral defects and 
possible ostenonecrosis of the talar dome. 

 

On 10 July 2008, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force 
under the provision of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, for Unsatisfactory Entry-Level Performance or Conduct for 
Minor Disciplinary Infractions. He completed 6 months and 3 days 
of active service. 

 

On 28 April 2009, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
awarded the applicant a 10 percent disability rating for his 
service connected ankle fracture. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial of the applicant's 
request and states the issue of establishing service connection 
is solely a matter of concern by the DVA and determines whether a 
veteran will be eligible for disability compensation for a given 
injury or illness. The applicant was given service connection for 
his ankle injury. Although the applicant sustained an injury 


during military service, it does not automatically warrant a 
medical basis for separation. The applicant would have undergone 
“dual-action” review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel 
Council (SAPFC) during which his administrative discharge and 
medical separation would be simultaneously considered. In view of 
the fact the applicant received an uncharacterized entry level 
separation near the 180-day point, the BCMR Medical Consultant 
opines that he would have been administratively discharged, even 
if he had been processed through the Military Disability 
Evaluation System and found unfit. The BCMR Medical Consultant 
bases his opinion upon the lack of any causal or mitigating 
relationship between the applicant's injury or a mental 
impairment and his minor disciplinary infractions. In addition, 
there is no evidence to validate his contention that he was 
mistreated for his injury. The DVA, operating under Title 38 
United States Code, is authorized to offer compensation for any 
medical condition determined to be service connected, without 
regard to its impact upon a service member's retainability, or 
the basis for separation. The applicant's medical conditions have 
already been determined service-connected, but were not the cause 
for career termination. Thus, the Medical Consultant opines the 
applicant has not met his burden of proof of the existence of an 
error or injustice that warrants a change in the narrative reason 
for separation or in the service characterization (although not a 
listed contention on his DD Form 149). 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 7 August 2009 for review and response within 30 days. As of 
this date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or an injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case. However, we did not find it sufficient to 
override the rationale provided by the BCMR Medical Consultant. 
Therefore, we are in agreement with the comments and 
recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his 
rationale as the basis for our decision the applicant has not 
been the victim of either an error or injustice. In view of the 
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 


compelling basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this 
application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2009-01084 in Executive Session on 1 December 2009, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 May 09. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Aug 09. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Aug 09. 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair