RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00251
            INDEX CODE:  100.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code and separation  (SPD)  code  be
changed to one that would allow enlistment  into  the  California  Air
National Guard (CA ANG).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He hurt his leg during his first year of service and during the next 3
years of rehabilitation  he  was  bounced  around  from  commander  to
commander thereby hindering any opportunity to  complete  his  initial
training.  He contends that he never had  a  chance  to  complete  his
training, that he is not an unintelligent person and  that  since  his
honorable discharge, he has completed  associate  degrees  in  general
education and computer graphics and has completed requirements  for  a
bachelor’s degree in computer information systems.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  has  submitted  a  personal
statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 August 1989.  He
attained the grade of Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) with a date of rank
(DOR) of 28 February 1991.  In 1991, he was recommended for  discharge
by his commander for twice failing his Career Development Course (CDC)
upgrade training courses.   However,  he  was  allowed  Probation  and
Rehabilitation (P&R) that he subsequently successfully completed.   He
did not however, reach his 5-skill level.   After  three  years  as  a
trainee, applicant’s commander gave him another opportunity to  attain
his  5-skill  level  by  administering  two  qualifying  tests.    The
applicant failed both attempts and consequently received a  letter  of
reprimand  (LOR)  on  14  September  1992.   He  was  recommended  for
discharge again on 5 November 1992  but  the  discharge  was  deferred
pending results of a medical evaluation board  (MEB).   Concurrent  to
the administrative discharge action specified above an MEB  was  being
conducted on the applicant as he had developed pain in  his  knees  in
1990 that had led to numerous physical profiles that  interfered  with
the performance of his duties.  He was recommended for cross  training
which his Command denied and  ordered  that  he  be  returned  to  his
specialty.  On 7 May 1993, applicant was found medically unfit and was
recommended for separation with 20% severance pay.  On 30  June  1993,
the Air Force Personnel Council recommended that the applicant,  under
dual action, be discharged for unsatisfactory performance rather  than
by reason of disability.  He was  discharged  on  14  July  1993,  for
Unsatisfactory  Performance  without  P&R,  with  characterization  of
service as honorable.  He was discharged as an  A1C  after  serving  3
years, 10 months and, 15 days.

Applicant applied to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) for a change  of
reason for discharge.  The DRB met on 14 August 1997  and  denied  the
request.  The Board found that neither evidence  of  record  nor  that
provided by the applicant substantiated  an  inequity  or  impropriety
that would justify a change of discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this case  file  and  recommended
denial.  The Medical Consultant states that the applicant, while being
processed for administrative discharge, was also being evaluated by  a
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) that constituted a  dual  action.   The
MEB had been initiated to examine the  applicant’s  continued  fitness
for duty.  The applicant was seen by an orthopedic surgeon  who  found
that the applicant suffered from a 3-year history  of  bilateral  knee
pain due to Retro-Patellar Pain Syndrome (RPPS)  and  iliotibial  band
syndrome (a tendonitis).  The applicant noted that prolonged  standing
aggravated his symptoms.  His job often required him to stand 12 hours
at a time with onset  of  symptoms  appearing  after  only  10  to  40
minutes.  The Medical Consultant notes that the  applicant,  after  14
months of physical therapy and medication, reported some  relief  only
when wearing  knee  braces.   Further  examination  of  the  applicant
yielded that he suffered also from a predisposing anatomic abnormality
of laterally displaced kneecaps, fluid in his knees  and  a  popliteal
cyst (Baker’s cyst) in his left knee as well as plica  in  both  knees
(fibrous bands in the knee forming during development that  can  be  a
cause of pain.)  The MEB recommended separation with severance pay but
because applicant’s disposition was considered dual  action,  the  Air
Force  Personnel  Council  recommended  he  be  discharged  under  the
administrative discharge action that was on hold  pending  results  of
the MEB.  The Medical Consultant states that even though  the  CA  ANG
has expressed an interest in the applicant, it should  be  noted  that
even if  the  applicant  had  been  medically  discharged  instead  of
administratively, his RE  code  and  SPD  code  would  have  reflected
medical disqualification.  The applicant would still not  be  eligible
for enlistment  into  the  military.   The  Medical  Consultant  notes
further that the applicant is receiving disability benefits  from  the
Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  at  the  rate  of  10%  compensable
disability for each knee.

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

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this case and recommended  denial.   DPPRS  states
that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and within the  discretionary
powers of the discharge authority.  They note the DRB’s denial of  the
application and that the request is not timely.  No  new  evidence  or
any identification of error or injustice has been presented to warrant
a change to the discharge.

DPPRS’s complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE has reviewed this case and verified that the RE code of 2C,
“Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge;  or  entry-level
separation without characterization of service” is correct.

DPPAE’s evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
4 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 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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, including his  academic
achievements, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated  assertions
regarding the relationship between his rehabilitation and his  failure
to  complete  required  upgrade  training,  in  and   by   themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the
Air Force offices 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.
 Therefore, 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-
2003-00251 in Executive Session on 17 July 2003, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
      Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
      Ms. Sharon Seymour, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jan 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 9 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 2 Jun 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 03.




                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Panel Chair