RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03520
            INDEX CODE:  100.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to  one  that  would
allow reenlistment.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged from the Air Force for a pre-existing condition that
affected his tibia and knees.  He contends that  he  was  misdiagnosed
and given bad  advice  from  his  military  doctor  that  led  to  his
discharge.  He has been trying to get back into the  Air  Force  since
his discharge and contends that he is 110% physically and mentally fit
and is willing to do whatever the Air Force demands of him.

In support of his appeal, the applicant had provided  several  letters
of  support  from  civilian  physicians   and   results   of   several
examinations.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  30  January  2001.
He completed basic military  training  (BMT)  and  technical  training
school and attained the grade of Airman First Class (A1C/E-3).  On  30
October 2001, the applicant went to a medical appointment and reported
experiencing worsening pain in his knees.  On 18 January  2002,  after
several appointments and a diagnosis, the applicant discussed  surgery
with  an  orthopedic  surgeon.    Applicant   declined   surgery   and
consequently underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB)  to  determine
his fitness for continued military service.  On 28 February 2002,  the
applicant’s commander wrote  to  the  Physical  Evaluation  Board  and
stated that the applicant’s medical condition would not allow  him  to
fulfill his military duties.  The applicant also submitted a letter to
the PEB stating his agreement with his  doctor’s  findings.   On    13
March 2002, the PEB recommended that the applicant be  separated  from
the Air Force under the provisions of Title  10  United  States  Code,
Chapter 61, due to a pre-existing physical disability.  The  applicant
noted agreement with the PEB’s findings and  waived  his  right  to  a
formal PEB hearing.  Applicant was  separated  on  3  May  2002  after
serving for 1 year, 3 months, and 3 days.  He was honorably discharged
under the auspices of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3212,  Disability
Existed Prior to Service – PEB.  He was serving in the  grade  of  A1C
upon discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this case and recommended that no
change be made to the applicant’s record.  He noted  that  in  October
2001, after reporting to  his  first  duty  station,  applicant  began
making regular medical appointments complaining about bi-lateral  knee
pain.  It was revealed that the pain,  while  present  since  the  7th
grade, began to worsen in BMT, more  so  in  technical  training,  and
finally worsened to the point  that  applicant  was  evaluated  by  an
orthopedic surgeon at his duty station.  Applicant was diagnosed  with
multi-plane deformity of the bilateral tibia including varus deformity
(bowing) with  external  rotation  of  bilateral  tibiae  (torsion  or
twisting).  Surgery was discussed with the  applicant  on  18  January
2002 but due to the significant risk associated with the  surgery  due
to  the  complexity  of  the  congenital  growth  deformity  and   the
uncertainty of the surgery decreasing the  knee  pain,  the  applicant
opted to forgo  surgery  and  undergo  a  MEB.   He  did  so  and  was
subsequently discharged due to a pre-existing physical disability.

Any difference of opinion between the Air Force’s  orthopedic  surgeon
and  civilian  orthopedic  surgeons  is  still  whether  or  not   the
applicant’s condition is disqualifying for  military  service.   While
the applicant appears to be doing well working in  a  less  physically
demanding occupation and has demonstrated the ability  to  participate
in regular jogging for a few months, the underlying cause of his  knee
pain has not been corrected and there is no evidence that he would not
experience recurring symptoms when exposed to the rigors  of  military
service.  The BCMR Medical Consultant refers to AFI 48-123, Attachment
3,  to  a  list  of  disqualifying  factors  for   military   service:
“deformities of one or both lower  extremities  that  have  interfered
with function to such a degree  as  to  prevent  the  individual  from
following a physically active vocation in civilian life or that  would
interfere with satisfactory  completion  of  prescribed  training  and
performance of military duty.”  The BCMR Medical  Consultant  contends
that  the  applicant  has  already  demonstrated  the   inability   to
satisfactorily complete performance of military duty.  The  Air  Force
cannot guarantee a sedentary occupation, and even members in sedentary
occupations  are  often  required  to  deploy  and  perform   vigorous
activities in operational settings.  The  applicant  had  demonstrated
his condition has rendered him unfit for routine military duty.

The BCMR Medical  Consultant’s  complete  evaluation  is  attached  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE has  reviewed  this  application  and  recommended  denial.
DPPAE  contends  that  under  the  circumstances  of  the  applicant’s
discharge, that the RE code was correct.

DPPAE’s complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
3 June 2003 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,
no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we  are  not  persuaded
that his uncorroborated assertions of misdiagnosis and bad  advice  on
the part of the military medical  personnel,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force.  He provided no evidence that his underlying condition has been
corrected.  Consequently we cannot assume that his knee problems would
not  recur  when  subjected  to  the  rigors  of   military   service.
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force  office  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt  the  rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.
 Consequently, in the absence of persuasive 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03520 in Executive Session on 1 July 2003, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 03




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair