RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00979
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 4C be upgraded to 1.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During basic training he developed a hernia and was discharged. After his
discharge, he underwent corrective surgery and would like to reenter the
Air Force.
In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a statement from a surgeon
indicating that he performed corrective surgery on the applicant’s hernia
on 14 November 2001, and the applicant is now able to go back to full duty.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 February 2001 for a
period of 6 years.
On 21 February 2001, it was determined he did not meet minimum medical
standards to enlist because of symptomatic congenital umbilical hernia.
On 5 March 2001, the commander notified him that he was recommending his
discharge for erroneous enlistment with an entry-level separation.
On 9 March 2001, he received an uncharactarized entry-level separation. He
was issued an RE code of 4C (Failure to Meet Physical Standards for
Enlistment). He completed 20 days of active service, with 1 month and 10
days of prior inactive service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant’s
reenlistment code can be changed so that he may apply for reenlistment;
however, he must meet all medical and physical requirements for enlistment.
The BCMR Medical Consultant states, in part, that the applicant has a
history of congenital umbilical hernia, to include two surgical repairs
prior to his enlistment. The governing instruction, lists hernia, other
than small asymptomatic umbilical hernia, as disqualifying for enlistment.
In addition, a history of an operation for a hernia within the preceding 60
days is disqualifying. The applicant underwent a third hernia surgery,
which employed the Kugel patch. Surgical repairs are usually successful,
and repairs employing the Kugel patch as in the applicant’s case tend to be
reliable.
The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, that
upon his entry-level separation, the applicant received an RE code 4C which
appropriately identifies his separation for failure to meet physical
standards for enlistment.
The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 1 November 2002 for review and response within 30 days.
However, 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 thoroughly reviewing the evidence
of record and noting the applicant’s contention, we find no showing of
either an error or injustice. The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the
applicant’s RE Code can be changed so that he may apply for reenlistment;
however, since the applicant has undergone three hernia operations within
the last four years, we are not persuaded that his condition has stabilized
and there is no guarantee that if he is returned to active duty and the
physical demands associated with such service, his condition will not
reoccur. In the absence of such evidence, we do not believe he has
sustained his burden of proving that he has suffered either an error or an
injustice. The RE Code assigned at the time of his separation is correct
and accurately identifies the fact that he was separated for failure to
meet physical standards for enlistment. Hence, we find no compelling basis
to recommend granting the relief sought.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 02-00979 in
Executive Session on 16 January 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson , Panel Chair
Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Jul 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Oct 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Nov 02.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04815
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While he was on orders for 167 days, he was diagnosed with a hernia in Feb 2011 and surgery was recommended. Although he received INCAP pay from 1 Apr 2012, he is entitled to a point for each day that he should have been continued on military orders. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 11 Jul 2012.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01139
The reason for the action was that he received a medical narrative summary, dated 1 April 2002, which found that he did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist because of a history of recurrent shoulder dislocation and pain. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01903
The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that he be discharged with an entry-level separation. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 6 May 2002, he was issued an Reenlistment...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03468
A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 6 April 1994, to determine whether the applicant should be retained due to left rib pain. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is forwarded to the applicant on 28 January 2003 for review and response within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03520
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged from the Air Force for a pre-existing condition that affected his tibia and knees. 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. He provided no evidence that his underlying condition has been corrected.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01704
“Slight, intermittent abdominal pain, status post ventral hernia repair with mesh” was the only condition forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Tender Scars…s/p Four Operative Procedures in Treatment of Umbilical/Ventral Hernia7339-780410%Status Post Ventral Hernia Repair with Mesh and Surgical Scar733920%*20060808Other x 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 520060808 Rating: 10%Combined: 30%*Derived from VA Rating...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01850
Although the discharge was proper, the applicant may now meet enlistment medical standards and the evidence warrants a change of RE code. The Consultant recommends approval but adds that a change of RE code by the Board is not equivalent to a finding of medically qualified for enlistment and does not guarantee acceptance by the Air Force for enlistment. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPPAE advises the 4C RE code was applied in accordance with governing...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00601
The PEB adjudicated the chronic anterior abdominal pain condition as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the USAPDA pain policy. Remote from separation, based on exam of July 2008, the VA rated the CI at 10% for painful abdominal scar as a residual of the hernia surgery. I direct that all the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected accordingly no later than 120 days from the date of this memorandum.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01015
The medical authorities concluded that the applicant had a pre-existing condition that would have precluded him from joining the Air Force had this condition been made known at the time of his enlistment. We note that AFPC/DPSOA has determined the applicants reentry (RE) code of 4C was issued erroneously and has corrected his records administratively to reflect that he was issued an RE code of 2C; however, in view of the fact that it appears as though the applicants disqualifying...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | bc-2005-02451
On 11 January 1974, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) concluded the applicant’s disqualifying condition existed prior to service, was not permanently aggravated by service, and recommended administrative discharge. BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant and counsel on 11 September 2006 for...