ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2001-03678
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

This  is  a  reconsideration  of  the  applicant’s   initial   request   for
retroactive reinstatement on active duty  from  the  date  of  her  original
separation.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 January 2000, the applicant received notification that  she  was  being
recommended for discharge for erroneous enlistment.  She received  an  entry
level separation on 11 January 2000 under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208
(Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards).  She had completed a  total
of 3 months and 20 days and was serving in the grade of airman  basic  (E-1)
at the time of separation.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of  four  years
on 18 April 2002.  She was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  airman
first class (E-3), with an effective date and  date  of  rank  of  29  April
2003, and is currently stationed at Offutt AFB, NE.

The Board considered a similar appeal for  retroactive  reinstatement  on  5
June 2002 and deferred final  action  on  the  applicant’s  request  pending
receipt of the results of a medical evaluation.  For an  accounting  of  the
facts and circumstances surrounding the  applicant’s  separation,  and,  the
rationale  of  the  earlier  decision  by  the  Board,  see  the  Record  of
Proceedings at Exhibit H.

The applicant’s medical evaluation was completed  at  Wilford  Hall  Medical
Center on 17 October 2002 and the results were forwarded to  the  Board  for
review (refer to Exhibit I).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the BCMR Medical  Consultant  reviewed  the
results of the cardiology evaluation and  provided  the  following  advisory
opinion.

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the  records
is  warranted.   The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  states  that   the   repeat
evaluation   definitively   confirmed   the   results   of   her    original
echocardiogram, that she does in fact  have  a  congenital  bicuspid  aortic
valve that is mildly sclerotic  (fibrosis,  calcification)  with  associated
mild  aortic  stenosis  (restriction  of  blood  flow  across  the   valve).
Comparison was made to her original echocardiogram from  December  1999  and
no evidence of progression of her mild aortic stenosis was noted  classified
as  mild  to  moderate  on  the  echocardiogram  report.    The   consulting
cardiologist felt that the applicant was not likely to  develop  significant
aortic valve stenosis  in  the  “near  future.”   He  recommended  continued
annual follow-up.

The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates that review of Air  Force  Instruction
48-123, medical standards for enlistment regarding  bicuspid  aortic  valve,
finds that a bicuspid aortic valve  is  not  grounds  for  rejection  unless
there is associated aortic stenosis.  The standard does not  further  define
stenosis and presence of any degree of stenosis is presently interpreted  by
AETC  Medical  Standards  and  medical  authorities  at  Lackland  AFB  (who
administer  the  majority   of   entry   level   separations   for   medical
disqualifications) as disqualifying.  The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  opines
that  the  applicant  was  properly  discharged  since  her   condition   is
disqualifying for entry into the military based on the presence of  valvular
stenosis.  However, medical standards for continued military service on  the
other hand allow individual who entered active  duty  with  bicuspid  aortic
valves without stenosis, to remain on active duty  when  they  develop  mild
stenosis.  The applicant has been on active duty for over six  months.   Her
current status of her congenital bicuspid valve and associated  stenosis  is
acceptable for continued active duty; however, any progression,  development
of symptoms, complications or duty limitations would be grounds for  finding
her unfit for continued duty resulting in separation for her existing  prior
to service conditions.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit J.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant  on  10  March
2003 for review and response.   As  of  this  date,  no  response  has  been
received by this office (Exhibit K).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  As a result of  the  previous  consideration  of  this  appeal,  it  was
determined that, due to the disparity between  echocardiogram  results,  the
applicant  should  have  another  medical  evaluation.   Therefore,  it  was
recommended that she undergo a repeat medical evaluation of her  previously-
diagnosed medical condition.

2.  The cardiology evaluation has been completed, as directed, and  reviewed
by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant.  After again  reviewing  this  application
and the evidence provided, we are  unpersuaded  that  the  applicant’s  2000
discharge was erroneous or unjust.  We are in  agreement  with  the  opinion
and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the  rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the  applicant  has  failed  to
sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error  or  an  injustice.
In this respect, we note that the repeat evaluation  confirmed  the  results
of the applicant’s original  echocardiogram;  therefore,  she  was  properly
discharged.  In view of the above and absent evidence to  the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the applicant’s  request  for
retroactive reinstatement on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________

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 8 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Mr. Michael Maglio, Member

The following  documentary  evidence  was  considered:  in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2001-03678.

      Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 15 August 2002,
                  with Exhibits.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 18 November 2002,
                  with Attachments.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                  16 December 2002.
      Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 March 2003.



                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair