RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02601
            INDEX NUMBER:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His disability discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was misinformed regarding his options when he was  discharged.   He
was not told that he could retire and still get  disability.   He  was
not told that severance pay would  be  considered  advance  disability
pay.  He would have chosen retirement vice disability discharge.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 17 Mar  78.   On
26 Sep 88, the applicant was  recommended  for  a  medical  evaluation
board (MEB) based on recurring knee problems.  On    28  Oct  99,  the
applicant was evaluated by an MEB for the purpose of determining if he
was fit to continue on active duty.   The  MEB  recommended  that  the
applicant be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB).  On 7  Nov
88, the PEB found that the applicant was unfit  for  military  service
because of physical disability and recommended that he  be  discharged
with severance pay based on a 20 percent disability rating.  On 16 Nov
88,  the  applicant  agreed  with   the   findings   and   recommended
disposition.  The applicant was discharged on 8 Dec 88 with  severance
pay.

Additional pertinent facts relevant to this application are  contained
in the evaluations prepared by the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air
Force found at Exhibits C and D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR medical  Consultant  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.  The applicant was disability discharged with  severance  pay
for service  aggravation  of  an  existing  prior  to  service  (EPTS)
recurrent  patellar  subluxation.    The   applicant   had   undergone
arthroscopic knee surgery for his condition for both  knees,  but  the
left knee did not improve.  The applicant was properly  evaluated  and
rated by the PEB.  Although his condition existed prior to service, no
EPTS factor was subtracted  in  arriving  at  his  disability  rating.
There is no evidence that he was not properly counseled regarding  the
disability process.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the  applicant’s  request.   Disability
processing records show the applicant was referred to an MEB  and  the
results forwarded to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for
their assessment.  The Board concluded his  persistent  left  patellar
subluxation status post arthroscopic surgery to have existed prior  to
service; however, the EPTS factor was  unascertainable.   The  medical
condition of his right patellofemoral arthrosis  was  also  considered
but determined as EPTS without service aggravation.  As  a  result  of
their  evaluation,  the  IPEB  recommended  he  be   discharged   with
entitlement to severance pay with  a  20  percent  disability  rating.
Records show he was counseled on the legal results of the findings and
recommended disposition of the IPEB, the  applicable  case  processing
procedures and appeal rights, and  concurred  with  the  findings  and
recommended disposition of the IPEB.  Consequently,  officials  within
the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force directed  discharge  with
severance pay in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section
1203.   They  cannot  confirm  or  deny  the  applicant’s  claims   of
miscounselling.  Their observation is that  the  disability  briefings
are routinely conducted appropriately  with  the  correct  information
provided to the military member.

Unfitting medical conditions rated at 30 percent or higher by the  PEB
during the MEB process, are eligible for a disability retirement under
disability laws and policy.  Those medical conditions rated less  than
30 percent are authorized discharge  with  severance  pay  as  in  the
applicant’s case.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluations applicant states that  he
was never told that  he  had  a  choice  of  accepting  severance  and
disability pay or medical retirement because of the 30% total  rating.
He was also not told that he could appeal the decision of  the  board.
He told his counselor that he wanted to cross-train into a field  that
would be less stressful on his knees,  but  was  told  that  once  the
decision was made to discharge him there  was  nothing  more  that  he
could do.  He found out later in life that there was  probably  a  lot
more that he could have done.  He states that the statement attributed
to him, “Don’t seem to be having any troubles” seems ludicrous,  since
he was still on crutches months after the surgery, was in pain  during
physical rehab, and was still having major difficulties  standing  for
prolonged periods and climbing stairs.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an  error  or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, 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 Docket  Number  BC-2002-
02601 in Executive Session on 7 May 2003, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 10 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 12 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Apr 03.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair