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
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01752
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 applicants request to remove the diagnosis of symptomatic pes planus from his records, indicating that no...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00184
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
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%;...