RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03282
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN   HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her separation and reenlistment codes  be  changed  to  allow  her  to
reenlist in the Air Force or Reserves.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After arriving at tech school, she  began  experiencing  pain  in  her
ankle.  She underwent numerous medical tests to diagnose the  problem.
When all forms of treatment and testing were inconclusive, a  magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) test was ordered to determine the cause of her
ankle pain.  During a follow-up visit nothing was mentioned about  her
MRI and the doctor still believed her ankle pain was due to  a  stress
fracture that was not  healing  properly.   In  the  duration  of  her
initial visit and her MRI, the doctor  had  given  her  at  least  two
recommendations for reclassification into a different job field.   The
doctor felt she was fully capable of  military  duty,  but  physically
could not complete security forces training.  She was seen by  another
doctor at the same facility  who  also  recommended  reclassification.
All recommendations for reclassification were denied  by  the  Student
Superintendent at her squadron.  The only option she received  was  to
separate.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 September 2001 for a
period of four years as an airman basic.

On 22 February 2002, applicant was notified of her commander's  intent
to recommend her for discharge for erroneous enlistment.

The commander stated the following reason for the proposed  discharge:
The  Chronological  Record  of  Medical Care, dated 11 February  2002,
indicates the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  ankle  pain.   It  was
determined this condition existed prior to service and  had  not  been
permanently aggravated by service.  Because  of  this  condition,  the
applicant’s ability  to  function  in  the  military  environment  was
significantly impaired.

The commander advised the applicant of  her  right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that legal counsel had been obtained to assist her; and to
submit statements in her own behalf, or waive the above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his  recommendation  for  discharge  action
that if his recommendation was approved,  the  applicant's  separation
would be characterized as entry-level.

On 25 February 2002, after consulting with counsel,  applicant  waived
her right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted in which the staff judge  advocate  (SJA)
recommended the applicant be discharged with an entry-level discharge.

The applicant was discharged on 5 March 2002, in the grade  of  airman
basic with an uncharacterized entry level separation.   She  served  1
month and 10 days of active duty service.  She received an RE code  of
“2C” which means "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge;
or entry level separation without service characterization and  a  SPD
of “JFC” which means "Erroneous Entry."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states the  applicant  while  in
basic training began experiencing right ankle and lower extremity pain
which interfered  with  her  training.   The  applicant  was  able  to
complete basic military training (BMT).  She then entered training for
Security Forces and was unable to meet the  physical  requirements  to
complete the training due to her ankle pain.

A review of the applicant’s medical records indicates the right  ankle
pain began on the first day of  basic  military  training  and  on  16
November 2001, the first day of  training  for  Security  Forces,  the
applicant was evaluated for ankle pain.  The applicant  was  initially
diagnosed with tendonitis and was treated with a  brace,  Motrin,  and
restricted  physical  limited  activity.   Due  to   the   applicant’s
persistent  pain  a  magnetic  resonance  imaging  (MRI)   study   was
performed.  The MRI report showed the ankle  was  normal  except  for:
“Nonspecific bone marrow edema, primarily in the posterior portion  of
the  right  talus.   The  radiologist  determined  this  most   likely
represented a mild contusion due to an old trauma.   The  differential
diagnosis would also include minimal  transient  osteoporosis.   There
was no evidence of cartilage  abnormality.”   The  applicant,  despite
therapy and activity limitations, continued to complain of ankle pain.
 The applicant’s podiatrist suggested she consider cross training to a
less stressful career field.

The applicant, in addition to her ankle pain, presented to the  clinic
for complaints of chest tightness and shortness  of  breath  when  she
walked and marched.  A family history of  asthma  in  her  father  and
sister was noted and the applicant was evaluated for possible  asthma.
A histamine brochoprovocation test was performed and the results  were
negative.  The applicant was returned to duty.

The applicant, in her request for correction of  her  records,  states
after her discharge she underwent treatment from a civilian orthopedic
surgeon who treated her with casting and arthroscopic surgery with  an
expectation of a “full recovery.”   However,  the  applicant  has  not
provided any information regarding her recovery and functional status.
  The  Medical  Consultant   further   states   if   the   applicant’s
postoperative outcome is excellent and her ankle shows normal function
without pain, favorable consideration for enlistment  is  likely.   He
recommends the applicant be invited to submit further evidence in  the
form of medical records.

The  Medical  Consultant  has   additional   concern   regarding   the
applicant’s history of possible reactive airway disease manifesting as
symptoms of chest tightness and shortness  of  breath  with  exercise.
Although the applicant’s brochoprovocation test was negative, a strong
family history of asthma was noted.  At the time  of  the  applicant’s
separation,  this  condition  was  not  disqualifying  for   continued
service.  However, medical  standards  for  enlistment  indicate  that
“asthma,  including  reactive   airway   disease,   exercise   induced
bronchospasm or asthmatic bronchitis, reliably diagnosed at  any  age”
is disqualifying for enlistment.  The medical  standards  are  broader
than defined diagnosis of asthma and include reactive airways that may
not meet strict criteria for the diagnosis of asthma.

The Medical Consultant states the action and disposition in this  case
were  proper  and  equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.  He recommends not changing the  RE
code, however,  the  applicant  is  encouraged  to  submit  copies  of
civilian medical records  concerning  her  postoperative  outcome  and
respiratory conditions for evaluation.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states based upon the documentation in  the  applicant's
records, they believe her discharge was consistent with the procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.   Also,  the
discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.

Air  Force  policy  is  that  entry-level  separations/uncharacterized
service characterizations are given to service members  who  have  not
completed more than  180  days  of  continuous  active  service.   The
Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a service member served less
than 180 days of active service, that it would be unfair to the member
to characterize that service.  The applicant's uncharacterized service
is correct and in accordance with DOD and AFIs.   The  uncharacterized
separation should not be viewed as negative and not be  confused  with
other types of separations.

DPPRS recommends the denying the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant received a reenlistment eligibility
code of "2C," indicating the member was involuntarily  separated  with
an  honorable   discharge,   or   entry   level   separation   without
characterization, which is correct (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  provided,  in
support of her application, copies of medical waivers from  a  Maj  N.
recommending reclassification for the applicant, civilian MRI  report,
operative report and arthroscopic  photographs  of  before  and  after
surgery and a letter from her podiatrist  stating  the  applicant  has
fully  recovered  from  ankle  condition   and   has   no   functional
limitations.

The applicant’s complete response  with  attachments  is  attached  at
Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice.  After a  careful  review  of
the applicant’s request,  the  available  medical  records,  and  the
evidence presented in support of her appeal, we are persuaded that  a
change to her narrative reason and reenlistment eligibility  code  is
warranted.  In coming to this conclusion, we noted that the applicant
indicates that she may have sprained her  ankle  prior  to  entry  on
active duty, but  that  she  successfully  completed  basic  military
training (BMT) and it was only after she commenced technical training
that she began to  experience  pain  in  her  ankle.   Therefore,  we
believe that any doubt should be resolved in the  applicant’s  favor.
In this respect, it is noted that according to her  medical  records,
the applicant presented  to the  podiatry  clinic for   treatment  on
16 November 2001 complaining of pain in her ankle for a week,  saying
that “the pain started after her first day of PT.”  We note that  the
applicant entered active duty on 26 September 2001, therefore, we are
persuaded that if the applicant’s condition was EPTS, it  would  have
manifested itself during the rigors of the six weeks of BMT.  In view
of  this,  we  believe  this  condition  commenced  during  technical
training, not BMT.  Additionally, it is noted that the only treatment
the applicant received during this time  period  was  medication,  an
ankle  brace,  and  a  profile  restricting  her  physical  activity.
Further,  the  treating  podiatrist  not  only  indicated  that   the
applicant’s condition did not warrant a medical separation  but  that
she should be cross-trained to a less stressful career field  because
of  a  protracted  recuperative  course.    However,   we   find   no
documentation that any further treatment was ordered or that she  was
ever  considered  for  cross-training.   Rather,  the  applicant  was
discharged for an erroneous enlistment on the basis that her  medical
condition existed prior to service (EPTS) and was not  aggravated  by
the  service.   Further,  while  we  cannot  determine  whether   her
condition would have resolved had  she  been  allowed  to  remain  on
active duty and received further treatment, we note that  with  post-
service treatment, the applicant has full function of her ankle.   In
view of the foregoing, we are persuaded that the applicant should not
be labeled with an erroneous  enlistment.   Therefore,  we  recommend
that  the  narrative  reason  for  her  separation  be   changed   to
“Secretarial Authority” with the corresponding  separation  code  and
her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be  changed  to  “3K”  thereby
affording her the opportunity to apply for a waiver  to  reenlist  in
the armed services.  Whether or not she is successful will depend  on
the needs of the service and  whether  she  is  otherwise  qualified.
This recommendation in no way guarantees that she will be allowed  to
return to the Air Force or any branch of service.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 5 March 2002,  she
was separated with an uncharacterized entry-level separation under the
provisions of AFI 36-3208,  paragraph  1.2,  (Secretarial  Authority),
with  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  code  of  “JFF”  and   a
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03282  in  Executive  Session on 13 May 2003  and  30  May  2003,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                       Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                       Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Oct 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                 2 Jan 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Feb 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Mar 03.
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
      Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 17 Apr 03,
                 w/atchs.




                       MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                       Panel Chair






AFBCMR BC-2002-03282
INDEX CODE:  110.00


MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of  the  Air
Force Board for  Correction  for  Military  Records  and  under  the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States  Code  (70A  Stat
116) it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department  of  the  Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, SSN, be corrected to  show  that  on  5
March 2002, she was separated with  an  uncharacterized  entry-level
separation under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  1.2,
(Secretarial Authority), with Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)
code of “JFF” and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K.”




                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency