RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01592
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge and that the
narrative reason for separation should be “Medically  Discharged  from
Service for Disability” rather than “Defective Enlistment Agreement.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His defective enlistment agreement was incorrectly determined  without
taking into consideration the fact  of  his  medical  withdrawal  from
combat control/air traffic control courses.

In support of his  request,  the  applicant  submits  a  DD  Form  293
(Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from  the  Armed
Forces of the United States) and copies  of  his  DD  Form  214.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 19 Sep
00 for a period of 4 years.  The applicant’s 23  Mar  01  request  for
early separation was approved by the separation authority  on  26  Mar
01.  He was honorably discharged on 4 Apr 01 under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-3208 (Defective Enlistment  Agreement).   He  had  completed  a
total of 6 months and 16 days at the time of discharge.   He  received
an RE  Code  of  3A,  which  defined  means  "First-term  airman,  who
separates before completing 36 months on current  enlistment  and  who
has no known disqualifying factors or ineligibility conditions  except
grade and skill level and insufficient Total Active  Federal  Military
Service (TAFMS)."

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant’s military records, are contained  in  the  letters
prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and
D.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that, in Jan  01,  the  applicant
was medically evaluated for left leg pain and the evaluation showed  a
stress fracture of his left femoral neck.  He  was  disqualified  from
further combat control training and became depressed over the loss  of
this elected duty.  He was seen briefly  for  an  adjustment  disorder
with depressed mood and  received  further  counseling  prior  to  his
separation.  Because he was unable to fulfill  his  service  contract,
and his lack of motivation to enter another Air Force  Specialty  Code
(AFSC), the applicant was discharged without benefit of medical  board
consideration.  The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  indicated  that  the
applicant’s case should have met a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)  and
been referred to the Physical  Evaluation  Board  (PEB),  either  with
placement  on  the  Temporary  Retired  Disability  List   (TDRL)   or
separation, the latter the more likely outcome.  Considering this case
in  retrospect  and  the  evidence  of  record,  the  AFBCMR   Medical
Consultant recommends the records be corrected to show  the  applicant
was found unfit for further military service, effective 4 Apr 01,  for
diagnosis of  stress  fracture  of  the  left  femoral  neck,  with  a
disability rating of 10%, under VASRD code 5255, Femur, Impairment  of
… with slight hip disability.  In addition, applicant’s RE code should
be changed to “4K.”  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at
Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied.  DPPD  stated  that
the issue is whether the applicant’s medical condition  warranted  MEB
consideration.  DPPD discussed the case with  HQ  AFPC/DPAMM  (Medical
Standards Branch), who after reviewing the case determined that an MEB
would not have been  appropriate  primarily  because  the  applicant’s
medical condition was considered  temporary  and  in  the  process  of
healing.  Other considerations taken into account were that,  although
the applicant was disqualified in his guaranteed Air Force  Specialty,
he was given the opportunity to serve  in  a  less  demanding/physical
career field.  The consensus is that once the Air  Force  offered  the
applicant the opportunity to remain on active duty by retraining, they
no longer cut short his military career.  This  gave  the  member  the
legal right to apply for voluntary discharge, which he did.

DPPD stated that to  ensure  that  the  applicant  received  the  full
benefit of their evaluation, the applicant’s case was forwarded to the
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for adjudication.  Following
their review, the board determined that, had they received an MEB, the
likely result would have been to return  the  applicant  to  duty  for
further care and observation, with the recommendation  to  cross-train
the applicant into a less demanding physical career field.  The IPEB’s
decision was  based  on  the  reality  that  his  disability  was  not
considered permanent, and that his temporary medical condition had not
cut his Air Force career short based on  his  opportunity  to  retrain
into a less physical job opportunity.

The HQ AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  14
December 2001 for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response
has been received by this office (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 probable error or injustice.  We  noted  the  opinion
and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant to the  effect  that
the applicant’s case should have met a Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB)
and,  therefore,  the  applicant’s   request   should   be   favorably
considered.   However,  after  reviewing  all  the  evidence  and  the
comments contained in the DPPD opinion provided for our review, we  do
not believe approval of the requested relief is appropriate.  We noted
that DPPD referred the  applicant’s  case  to  the  Medical  Standards
Branch (HQ AFPC/DPAMM) and  the  Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board
(IPEB) for review.  In this regard, DPAMM determined that an MEB would
not have been appropriate because the  applicant’s  medical  condition
was considered temporary and he was given the opportunity to serve  in
a less demanding/physical career field.  In addition, we noted  DPPD’s
assertion that, as a result of an informal review of  the  applicant’s
records by the IPEB, it was their opinion that  since  his  disability
was not considered permanent and his temporary medical  condition  had
not cut his Air Force career short, he most  likely  would  have  been
returned  to  duty  for  further  care  and   observation   with   the
recommendation to cross-train  into  a  less  physical  career  field.
Although the applicant was found medically disqualified  as  a  Combat
Control  Apprentice,  his  Air  Force  Specialty,  he  was  given  the
opportunity to serve in another career field.  However,  he  chose  to
request early separation rather than cross-train.   We  have  seen  no
persuasive evidence by the applicant that would lead us to believe  he
was medically unfit for continued service due to a permanent  physical
disability at the time of his voluntary discharge.   In  view  of  the
foregoing and in the absence of evidence by the  applicant  indicating
the information in his military medical records is erroneous  or  that
the opinions  of  the  Medical  Standards  Branch  and  the  IPEB,  as
expressed in the DPPD evaluation, were not based on  accepted  medical
principles, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of  DPPD  and
find no compelling 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 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 Docket  Number  01-01592
in Executive Session on 20 February 2002, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                  Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
                  Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jun 01, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
               22 Oct 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 11 Dec 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 01.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON JR.
                                   Panel Chair