RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03702
INDEX CODE: 110.00, 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His type of discharge (entry level separation - Uncharacterized) be
reconsidered and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4C be
changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Since his discharge in 1996 he has been trying to reenlist for either
active duty, Reserves or National Guard in any branch of service. He
has been unsuccessful thus far. He feels changing his discharge code
may help him a little. He is not ready to give up trying to get back
into the military and any help would be greatly appreciated. In his
many pieces of correspondence with different recruiters and other
officials, it is felt an entry-level separation should not have been
given based on a medical condition which he and no one else knew about
previously. In support of the appeal, applicant submitted two copies
of his DD Form 214, a copy of his vision prescription and a copy of an
NPS Applicant Summary.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 November 1996 in the
grade of airman first class for a period of four years.
On 16 December 1996, applicant’s commander notified him that she was
recommending discharge from the Air Force for erroneous enlistment.
Her reason for this action was a medical evaluation board that met at
Lackland AFB, TX on 10 December 1996 which found he did not meet
minimum medical standards to join the Air Force. It was determined he
should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because of
keratoconus OD.
The applicant waived his option to consult counsel and his right to
submit statements. The discharge authority approved the separation
action on 19 December 1996.
Applicant was administratively discharged from the Air Force on 20
December 1996, under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208,
Chapter 5, Section C, Paragraph 5.14 (Failed Medical/Physical
Procurement Standards), with an uncharacterized entry-level
separation. He was assigned a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of
4C (Separated for concealment of juvenile records, minority, failure
to meet physical standards for enlistment, failure to attain a 9.0
reading grade level as measured by the Air Force Reading Abilities
Test (AFRAT), or void enlistments). He served one month and eight
days of active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant states the diagnosis has been confirmed by
Department of Veterans Affairs since his discharge. Corneal dystrophy
of any type, including keratoconus of any degree is disqualifying for
entry. Keratoconus is a slowly progressive irregularity of the
cornea, usually affecting both eyes, that begins between the age of 10
and 20 and requires frequent changing of lens prescriptions. The 13
days the applicant was on active duty were not long enough to have
developed this condition after entry. By the time of diagnosis, he
already demonstrated thinning of the cornea, a later finding, and had
required glasses for six years. The cause is unknown, but it results
in progressive change in the shape of the cornea including thinning
with attendant changes in visual acuity which may become uncorrectable
with lenses and require surgery.
The BCMR Medical Consultant stated that the action and disposition in
this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air
Force directives that implement the law.
The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the
records is warranted.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states that he recently underwent a corneal transplant in
his right eye to take care of the Keratocopus. His vision in the
affected eye is now 20/30 uncorrected and 20/20 with little
correction. There is no evidence of Keratocopus in the left eye. It
has been two months since his surgery, which occurred on 10 February
2004. It usually takes about 10 to 14 months to get the vision back.
His physician assures him that he sees no reason why military service
would hinder his progress at all.
Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.
On 10 May 2004, per telecom with applicant, he indicated he would send
medical documents. On 18 May 2004, medical documents were received
(Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant states that not only is corneal dystrophy
of any type, including keratocopus of any degree disqualifying for
entry, but so is the corrective surgery. Department of Defense and
Air Force medical standards for entrance into military service
indicate that keratorefractive surgery, laser surgery to reconfigure
the cornea and penetrating keratoplasty (corneal transplant) are
disqualifying for military service. The BCMR Medical Consultant is of
the opinion that no change in the records is warranted.
A copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.
_______________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 9 June 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within 14 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit G).
_______________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the BCMR
Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for the
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. In this respect, we note that the applicant’s eye
condition is disqualifying for entry into the Air Force. Therefore,
in the absence of 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 this application in
Executive Session on 30 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Panel Chair
Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Nov 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Mar 04.
Exhibit D. Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Medical Documents.
Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Jun 04.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jun 04.
EDWARD H. PARKER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01096
The applicant was further advised that if he believes his vision has been corrected enough to meet admission standards for the USAFA and subsequent commissioning in the USAF, he should contact the nearest Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board (DoDMERB) office to have his vision tested. In this respect, we note, the applicant has been advised by officials at the USAFA that if he believes his vision has been corrected enough to meet admission standards for the USAFA and...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01341
SEPARATION DATE: 20041104 At theophthalmology examination performed on 30 October 2003, the CI was unable to count fingers at ten inches in front of his left eye and at following ophthalmology examination dated 3 November 2003; theexaminer opined that current objective eye findings, non-physiologic vision loss could be a factor.Anophthalmology consultation dated 10 December 2003, noted the CI’s subjective complaint of inability to see from the left eye and also that “exams indicate vision...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2008-153
CGPC stated that the applicant was unable to receive a commission on May 23, 2007, because he had not completed all of the required physical evaluations to substantiate his fitness for commissioning, as required by 14 U.S.C. CGPC stated that the applicant did not demonstrate full physical qualification for commissioning until August 6, 2007, and then his request for a waiver for his PRK surgery had to be processed and approved, which occurred on September 7, 2007. Therefore, a waiver...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01169
The keratoconus and sleep apnea conditions, characterized as “keratoconus in each eye corrected with rigid gas permeable contact lenses, EPTS (existed prior to service), not permanently aggravated by service;” and “sleep apnea requiring CPAP,”were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501 as medically unacceptable.The MEB forwarded no other conditions.The PEBadjudicated “keratoconus in each eye, corrected with rigid gas permeable contact lens, EPTS, not permanently...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01506
The Board directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.The Informal PEB rated the right eye injury 10% using the code 6090-6079 (diplopia-Vision in one eye 20/100 and other eye 20/40) noting aphakia, correctable with a contact lens, post-operative residual diplopia, and visual acuity 20/70 in the right eye and 20/20 in the left eye. X-rays dated 27 August 2003 for lower back pain with a normal examination and without a neurological deficit were reported to be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03941
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant had an existing prior to service (EPTS) eye condition that was waived at the time of his enlistment and he completed his four-year term of service receiving an honorable discharge. His eye condition was noted in his enlistment, periodic, and separation medical examinations, and there was no evidence...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02321
The eye conditions, characterized as “mild traumatic cataract,” “decreased vision,” and “cystoid macular edema” of the left eye, were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEBcombined the MEB diagnoses as a single unfitting condition, rated 10% under criteria of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board also acknowledges the CI’s information regarding the occupational impediments due to his...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 02405 2
The entry in his official medical records, dated 20 Sep 65, stating his headaches were relieved by proper eyeglasses in 1965 be changed to read Headaches from Dec 1961 to 1 Oct 65. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F. On 3 Jun 10, the Board notified the applicant that a subsequent, undated, request for reconsideration by the...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . The advisory provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 15 Jun 98 gives information concerning applicant’s medical condition at the time of her enlistment. Commander advised that if the recommendation for discharge is approved, her discharge would be described as an entry level separation and she will be ineligible for reenlistment...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02417 INDEX CODE: 108.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge be changed to reflect medical retirement. The Medical Consultant states that the applicant provided a partial copy of a letter written by his eye doctor that seems to indicate some weight contribution from his...