RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03567 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her character of service be changed from “uncharacterized” to “honorable.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was counseled that she would receive an administrative discharge for erroneous enlistment; however, she did not understand what she was being told, and was too intimidated to question her commander. She was not dishonest when she enlisted in the Air Force. She did not have problems with her knee prior to entering the military; her problems began shortly after drill. After mentioning her knee problems to a friend, she was encouraged to file a claim with the DVA. In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and documents related to her administrative discharge. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 4 Nov 08, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of six years. On 29 Dec 08, the applicant was notified by her commander that he was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for erroneous enlistment. The reason for the proposed action was her commander received a medical narrative summary, dated 24 Dec 08 that found the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist. She acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, waived her right to counsel, and her right to submit statements in her own behalf. The case file was found legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the separation. On 31 Dec 08, she was discharged with an uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of failed medical/physical procurement standards. She served on active duty for a period of 1 month and 27 days. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states the applicant’s separation was completed in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. SGPS states during basic military training (BMT) the applicant’s symptoms began to limit her physical training and marching movements, and became so intense she could not continue in training. She did not disclose a past knee injury and was cleared for accession. Her condition was not caused by military service, but appears it was aggravated by the extensive physical training required during BMT. At the time of separation the applicant did not request an AETC/SG waiver, and signed a letter understanding that if separated for the reasons cited, she would not be entitled to any disability, retirement, or severance pay. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant’s service characterization is correct as reflected on her DD Form 214. 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, her uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. DPSOS states 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. The applicant should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because she had lateral meniscus derangement. Had the Air Force known of this condition at the time of the applicant’s enlistment, she would not have been allowed to enter into the military. Although the applicant states she was intimidated by her commander to ask questions, her medical condition does not meet medical assessment standards. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 25 Mar 11, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ 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 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 (OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and of themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force OPRs. Therefore, we conclude that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof that she has been the victim of an error or an injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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-2010-03567 in Executive Session on 24 May 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2010-03567 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 22 Nov 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 15 Feb 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 11. Panel Chair