RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00187
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was still in process when her DD  Form  214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active  Duty)  was  signed.   She
questioned the code and was told it should not pose a problem if  she  tried
to reenlist.  The result of her MEB was to  return  to  duty.   She  was  on
terminal leave and living in another state when she found out about the  MEB
results.  The 4K code will make reenlisting or  getting  a  commission  more
complicated.  The code may also pose future problems with government jobs.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a copy of her DD  Form  214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)  and  a  letter  from
AFPC/DPAMM, dated 22 October 2002.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  30  December  1998  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

The applicant’s medical records reveal the following:





      In 1999, while in basic training the applicant developed severe  right
lower leg pain (had bilateral  symptoms,  right  much  greater  than  left),
which  persisted  throughout  her  entire  enlistment  promoting   extensive
medical evaluation culminating in an MEB in September 2001.

      On 30 July 2001, the applicant’s commander indicated in  a  letter  to
the --th AMDS/SGPW that the applicant was absent from work between  two  and
six times per month for reasons  such  as  attending  physical  therapy  and
medical appointments/evaluations.  Due to her  medical  profile  status  she
could not deploy with her unit even  in  a  limited  status  or  to  limited
locations.

      On 4 September 2001, the applicant met  an  MEB  and  they  determined
that the applicant suffered from chronic right leg stress syndrome.  It  did
not exist prior to service (EPTS) and the case was referred to the  Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB).  The physical examination indicated that the last x-
ray of the applicant’s leg was on 14 March 2001.   The  applicant  underwent
an Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of her lower extremity initially  on  21
April 2000 which showed basically stress reaction within the marrow  of  the
tibia.  The MRI was repeated on 29 June  2001  and  showed  no  change  from
April.  Her prognosis was fair to good.  Restrictions  were  limited  to  no
prolonged standing or running and to avoid physical training testing.

      On 22 March 2002, a Physical  Profile  Serial  Report  (AF  Form  422)
indicated that the applicant  was  found  fit  and  was  returned  to  duty.
However,  applicant’s  medical  condition  was  considered  restricting  and
required an Assignment  Limitation  Code  C.   Applicant  was  not  mobility
qualified.  Her condition  required  a  Review-In-Lieu-of  MEB/PEB  with  an
orthopedic surgeon.

On 9 December 2002, the applicant was honorably released from  active  duty,
in the grade  of  staff  sergeant,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208
(Completion of Active  Service).   She  completed  3 years,  11  months  and
10 days of total active duty service.

The applicant  received  an  RE  code  of  4K  (Medically  disqualified  for
continued service, or the airman is pending evaluation by MEB/PEB).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical consultant  recommended  denial.   He  indicated  that  a
change in the RE code is not warranted but recommends  an  advisory  opinion
from the Medical Standards Branch at AFPC regarding  the  propriety  of  the
assignment of the RE code.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAMM indicates that the applicant  has  had  chronic  leg  pain  since
basic training.  In October 2001, she met an MEB and was  returned  to  duty
with an Assignment Limitation Code C.  Subsequently  she  met  a  Review-in-
Lieu of MEB in October 2002 and was returned to  duty  and  the  C-code  was
removed.  This office no longer assigns C-codes to individuals with  chronic
orthopedic problems.  She voluntarily separated in December 2002  and  would
like to reenlist.  “Return to duty” on  an  MEB  indicates  that  member  is
considered fit for retention.  Any decision on accession is handled  through
the AETC Surgeon’s Office.  It is fair to note  that  at  the  time  of  her
separation, there were no limitations on her assignability  by  the  Medical
Standards Branch.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE  indicated  that  since  there  is  no   documentation   by   the
applicant’s former commander to indicate reenlistment eligibility under  the
Selection Reenlistment Program, they recommend that the  Board  correct  the
applicant’s RE code to reflect 3K (Reserved  for  use  by  HQ  AFPC  or  the
AFBCMR  when  no  other  reenlistment  eligibility  code   applies   or   is
appropriate).

The evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 25 July 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response 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 an error or injustice that would warrant a  change  to  her  RE
code.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and   the
applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that  given  the  circumstances
surrounding her separation from the Air Force, that the RE  code  should  be
changed.  The applicant has not provided any evidence which  would  lead  us
to believe otherwise.  The opinions from the Medical  Standards  Branch  and
Enlisted Accessions are duly noted.  However,  we  agree  with  the  opinion
from the BCMR Medical Consultant which indicates  that  any  condition  that
interferes with general functional ability to such an extent as  to  prevent
satisfactory  performance  of  military  duty  may  be   disqualifying   for
continued  service,  retention  or  enlistment.   We  note  the  applicant’s
condition was determined to be  not  severe  enough  to  warrant  disability
discharge; however, her condition, if unresolved may  be  disqualifying  for
reentry since it rendered her unable to deploy and meet  Air  Force  fitness
standards.  In view of the chronic nature of her condition, and the  failure
to improve despite protracted physical limitation and  treatment,  it  would
appear it is likely the condition could recur  under  similar  circumstances
routinely encountered in military service.  Further, the applicant  has  not
submitted documentation indicating  the  nature  of  her  medical  condition
since leaving the military.  The applicant is reminded that the  current  RE
code is a waiverable code.  So, should she be otherwise qualified,  she  may
request a waiver of the code should she desire to enlist  in  the  Reserves.
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the  contrary,  we  find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an 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-2003-
00187 in Executive Session on 23 September 2003,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                  Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                  Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 January 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                   dated 4 April 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAMM, dated 6 May 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 July 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 July 2003.



                                ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                Panel Chair