Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1998-01854
Original file (BC-1998-01854.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01854
            INDEX CODE:  100.06

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to  a  code  that
will allow him to reenlist in a Reserve component.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told when he out processed that  he  would  be  eligible  to
reenlist in the armed forces at a later date.  Upon inquiring about
his eligibility to reenlist, he discovered that his RE code  barred
him from reenlistment in the armed forces without  a  review  being
conducted by the Board in his behalf.

He has been married to the same wife and worked as a  civilian  for
the last 13 years.  He was young and immature  when  he  originally
joined the Air Force, and was married just six days before he  left
for basic training.  Although he  did  experience  some  discomfort
with his boot, his decision to get out of the  Air  Force  was  not
based on his injury, but rather homesickness.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement,
a letter of character reference from a co-worker; a letter from his
employer; a copy of his marriage license and marriage  certificate;
and copies of excerpts from his military personnel records.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13  April  1989,  in
the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1).

On 9 May 1989,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant  for  erroneous  enlistment.
The reason for the proposed action was that he received  a  medical
evaluation board narrative summary that found the applicant did not
meet minimum medical standards to enlist.  The applicant should not
have been allowed to enlist in the Air Force with a  pronated  foot
type, symptomatic, impairing the wear of the military combat  boot.
He did not qualify for  a  disability  separation.   The  commander
recommended that the applicant be given an entry-level  separation.
On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the  discharge
notification.  He waived his right to consult counsel and to submit
statements  in  his  own  behalf.    He   also   acknowledged   his
understanding of the reasons for his discharge, and that  he  would
not be entitled to any disability, retirement,  or  severance  pay.
On 10 May 1989, the discharge authority  approved  the  entry-level
separation with service uncharacterized.

The applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation on
12 May 1989, by reason of “failed to meet  physical  standards  for
enlistment,” and was issued RE code 4C (separated  for  concealment
of juvenile records, minority, failure to meet  physical  standards
for enlistment, failure to attain a 9.0 reading level  as  measured
by the Air Force Reading Abilities Test, or void  enlistment).   He
was credited with 1 month of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this  application  and  states
that his RE  code  may  be  changed  to  allow  him  to  apply  for
enlistment.  The applicant was discharged on 12 May 1989 after  one
month on active duty due to disqualifying foot  pain  when  wearing
combat boots due to existing prior  to  service  (EPTS)  flat  feet
(pronated foot type).

On 21 Apr 1989, after one week of training, applicant went  to  the
clinic complaining of being stressed out with loss of appetite  and
decreased sleep.  The applicant was  provisionally  diagnosed  with
Adjustment Disorder, removed from training  and  placed  on  casual
status, and referred to mental health  for  evaluation.   A  mental
health  evaluation  diagnosed  the  applicant  with  an  Adjustment
Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of  Emotions  and  also  identified
immature  and  manipulative  personality  traits  on   the   formal
diagnosis.   Although  his  predicted  suitability  for   continued
military service was judged fair to poor, he was returned  to  duty
with referral to a group therapy program.  The Air Force Form  422,
dated 21 Apr 1989, indicates removal from  training  and  placement
into casual status “as soon as administratively  possible”  due  to
adjustment disorder  with  an  expiration  date  of  28  Apr  1989.
Presumably, he was returned to full training on 28 Apr 1989.

On 28 Apr 1989, applicant went to the clinic  complaining  of  foot
pain from his combat boots.  He gave  a  history  of  pain  in  the
calcaneal area while wearing boots for many years prior to service,
and that he always wore tennis shoes.  He stated that he  had  pain
while standing for long periods of time and denied any injuries  or
accidents during basic training.  Examination by a podiatrist found
him to have a pronated foot type in stance and  gait.   Because  he
was symptomatic interfering with training he  was  recommended  for
discharge for his existing prior to service condition.  The Medical
Evaluation  Board  recommended  discharge  due   to   disqualifying
existing prior to service  condition  not  aggravated  by  service:
pronated foot type, symptomatic, impairing the wear of the military
combat boot.  On his enlistment medical examination, he denied  any
history of foot trouble.

The applicant developed symptoms  of  adjustment  disorder  shortly
after starting basic training.  Past experience may  be  considered
predictive of an increased risk for recurrent problems when exposed
to the stresses of military operations, deployment, or combat  when
separated from familiar surroundings and usual  support  system  of
family and friends.  However, the fact that his symptoms  were  not
felt to be severe enough to warrant an immediate recommendation for
discharge combined with the fact that he has a stable marriage  and
stable employment since  his  discharge  provides  some  degree  of
evidence  indicating  that  he  possesses  normal  coping   skills.
Although the action and disposition in this  case  are  proper  and
equitable reflecting compliance  with  Air  Force  directives  that
implement the  law,  favorable  consideration  of  his  request  is
supported by the evidence.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial.  They found that his RE  code  is
correct and was properly given in accordance with proper Air  Force
authority.  However, his current RE code is waiverable under AFI 36-
2606, Reenlistments in the USAF.  If he so  desires  to  request  a
waiver, he should contact  a  military  recruiter.   They  are  the
points of contact and waiver authority for personnel  having  prior
service who desire to return to duty.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant
on 25 Apr 2003 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 not timely filed; however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.   At  the  time  a
member is separated from the Air Force, they are  furnished  an  RE
Code  predicated  upon  the  quality  of  their  service  and   the
circumstances of their separation.  The assigned code reflects  the
Air Force’s position  regarding  whether  or  not,  or  under  what
circumstances, the individual should be allowed to  reenlist.   The
Medical Consultant states that  the  applicant’s  RE  code  may  be
changed to allow the applicant to apply for  enlistment.   However,
we note that the applicant’s current RE code allows  him  to  apply
and since the RE code is correct; we 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 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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
98-01854 in Executive Session on 4 June 2003, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 10 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 15 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01752

    Original file (PD-2013-01752.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Over several months she noted improvement with Zoloft, which when discontinued in December1998, she again became depressedand it was reintroduced.In June 1999, she became overwhelmed by a move to a new duty station and...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00091

    Original file (PD-2014-00091.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The left foot conditions, characterized as “symptomatic pes planus on the left foot” and “left plantar fasciitis” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Plantar Fasciitis Left Foot w/ Congenital Pes Planus5399-53100%Left Foot Plantar Fasciitis and Pes Planus52760%*20060102Other x1 (Not in Scope)Other x7 Combined: 0%Combined: 40%Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20060410(most proximate to date...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00436

    Original file (BC-2005-00436.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00436 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 AUG 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. Individuals who develop Adjustment Disorder due to the stress of the routine rigors of military service with or without concomitant...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01598

    Original file (PD2012 01598.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Lumbago and positive TB skin test conditions, identified in the rating chart below, were also identified and forwarded by the MEB as meeting retention standards.The PEB adjudicated the bilateral plantar fasciitis condition as unfitting, rated 10% for the right foot and 10% for the left foot for a combined rating of 20%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The remaining conditions were determined to be not unfitting.The CI made no appeals, and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00107

    Original file (BC-2005-00107.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Because of the recurring nature of psychological stress-induced abdominal pain interfering with training, he was removed from training and placed in the medical hold squadron for medical evaluation board. At the time of the mental health evaluation, the applicant was already pending discharge for his abdominal pain however evidence of the record indicates that his Adjustment Disorder was of sufficient severity to warrant discharge on the basis of unsuitability. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00599

    Original file (PD2011-00599.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW The Board’s authority as defined in DoDI 6044.40, however, resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness determinations and rating decisions for disability at the time of separation. The PEB adjudicated the foot condition as chronic foot pain secondary to stress fractures and plantar fasciitis under code 5279 metatarsalgia at 10 % disability rating, the only rating under this code.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06862-02

    Original file (06862-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (I) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to show that she was discharged by reason of Secretarial Authority, and assigned a reenlistment code of RE-1. Contrary to counsel noted to have pes planus during examinations conducted both before and after she enlisted. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01802

    Original file (BC 2014 01802.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01802 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the diagnosis of symptomatic pes planus from his records, indicating that no...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00184

    Original file (PD-2014-00184.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Pain Bilateral Thighs, Ankles, and Feet5099-500310%Chronic Right Ankle Sprain…527110%20061107Chronic Left Ankle Sprain…527110%20061107Bilateral Pes...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00636

    Original file (PD2011-00636.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    Bilateral Foot Condition . Secondly, the congenital pes planus condition itself was not service-aggravated; rather, the painful complications of plantar fasciitis and/or tendinitis were the service-acquired and unfitting conditions (e.g., subject to disability rating). In the matter of the bilateral plantar fasciitis condition, the Board unanimously recommends that each foot be separately adjudicated as follows: an unfitting right plantar fasciitis condition coded 5399-5310 and rated 10%;...