RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03452
                 INDEX CODE 110.02
                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Entry Level Separation, with  an  “uncharacterized”  character  of
service be changed to an “Honorable” characterization.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was medically fit for the Air Force [upon entry]  and  was  injured
during basic training.  A stress fracture in  his  left  leg  was  not
diagnosed by the medical personnel at   Air Force Base (AFB),    .

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a copy of  the  Department
of Veterans Affairs (DVA) compensation claim.

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  1  July  1998  for  a
period of four (4) years in the grade of airman basic.

Applicant was in the fourth week of basic training when  he  was  seen
for left knee pain on 6 August 1998.  Two weeks later he  was  further
evaluated and gave a history of knee pain  “for  years”  but  had  not
disclosed this at the time of his enlistment physical examination.

On 31 August 1998, while serving in the grade  of  airman  basic,  the
Training Squadron Commander notified applicant  that  she  (commander)
was recommending that applicant be discharged from the U. S. Air Force
for erroneous enlistment.  The reason  for  this  action  was  that  a
medical narrative summary,  dated  24  August  1998,  found  that  the
applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist because  of
left  knee  patellofemoral  syndrome  (PFS).  Applicant   acknowledged
receipt of the notification on 31 August 1998 and waived his right  to
consult counsel and waived his  right  to  submit  statements  in  his
behalf.

Applicant was subsequently discharged on 3 September  1998  under  the
provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  (Failed  Medical/Physical   Procurement
Standards) with an Entry Level Separation with a character of  service
as “Uncharacterized.”  The reenlistment eligibility (RE)  code  issued
was a “4C” (Separated for  failure  to  meet  physical  standards  for
enlistment.)   Applicant served 2 months and 3 days of active military
duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief  Medical  Consultant,   AFBCMR,   states   that   following
separation, the applicant was  seen  in  the  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA) system where a follow-up x-ray actually showed a healing
stress fracture of the left tibial metaphysis and he was  awarded  10%
disability based on this finding.  There appears  no  doubt  that  the
applicant’s reason for discharge is inequitable given  the  additional
information presented.  Clearly, a service-incurred stress fracture of
his left tibia occurred which was the source of his knee pain, not the
reported existed prior to service (EPTS) condition  of  patellofemoral
syndrome.   Had  the  correct  diagnosis  been  made  initially,   the
applicant would likely not have been separated, but rather allowed  to
heal and then to reenter basic training and complete  his  enlistment.
The  Medical  Consultant  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  applicant’s
narrative reason for discharge should be changed  to  Disability,  not
entitled to severance pay (Entry Level Separation)  and  the  RE  code
should be unrestricted to allow future entry to  the  military  should
the applicant so choose.  The uncharacterized nature  of  service,  by
law, should remain unchanged for this period of service.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Special Actions/BCMR Advisories, USAF  Physical  Disability
Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, states that there  is  no  objective  evidence
that the applicant’s stress fracture found on the MRI  preexisted  his
service.  The applicant’s medical condition was considered by the  DVA
not to  be  considered  permanent  and  subject  to  a  future  review
examination.  Had a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)  been  accomplished
with the proper diagnosis (stress  fracture  of  the  left  tibia  and
referred  to  the  Informal  Physical  Evaluation  board  (IPEB),  the
applicant’s medical condition would not have been found unfitting  for
continued military service under the provisions of disability laws and
policy, and he would have been  “Returned  To  Duty”  pending  further
medical treatment and resumption of training.  While AFPC/DPPD  agrees
with much of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s advisory,  Title  10,  USC,
Section 1203, cannot be  used  as  the  rationale  for  a  “disability
discharge” as the applicant was definitely  not  unfit  for  continued
military service in accordance with Title 10, USC and DoDD 1332.18.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations  Branch,  HQ
AFPC/DPPRS,    states    that    airmen    are    given    entry-level
separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is
initiated  in  the  first  180  days  of  continuous  active  service.
Applicant  only  served  2  months  and  3  days  of  active  service.
Department of Defense 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 active service.   Recommend  the
applicant’s request be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

The Chief, Skills Management Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, states that  since
the type of separation received drives RE codes, applicant’s  code  is
correct as reflected.  Generally, RE codes beginning with “4”  can  be
waived for enlistment purposes,  provided  the  individual  meets  all
other  requirements  for  enlistment  purposes.    Considering   this,
recommend the RE code remain unchanged.  However, if the  decision  is
to grant relief, applicant’s record should be corrected to reflect his
RE code as “3K,” “Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the  AFBCMR  when  no
other RE code applies of is appropriate.”

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
7 June 1999 for review and response.  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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant  changing  the
narrative reason for the  applicant’s  discharge.  The  Department  of
Defense 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 active service.  While there may have  been
a misdiagnosis regarding his left knee,  the  fact  remains  that  the
applicant only served 2 months and 3 days of active service.  Awarding
him an honorable characterization would be  inappropriate.  Therefore,
his uncharacterized character of service is correct and in  accordance
with governing directives. While the  “4”  RE  code  series  indicates
“Conditions  Barring  Immediate   Reenlistment,”   these   codes   are
“waiverable.” In other words, the “4C” RE code the applicant has would
permit him to apply for  enlistment  and,  should  he  have  desirable
skills and be otherwise acceptable (e.g.,  medically  qualified),  the
Reserves may elect to waive his ineligibility and allow him to enlist.
The applicant should understand that the “4” series RE codes in no way
obligate any of the Services to accept him for enlistment. In view  of
the above, we find no compelling basis to recommend corrective action.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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 7 December 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

            Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
            Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
            Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Dec 98, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 Jan 99.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 15 Mar 99.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 May 99.
  Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 14 May 99.
  Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Jun 99.




                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair