RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00052
            INDEX NUMBER: 128.08

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reimbursed  for  the  severance  pay  he  lost  as  a  result  of  his
disability rating of 22% being decreased to 10%, and his  severance  pay  be
calculated based on the rank of airman (E-2).

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to his enlistment, he never had knee problems and  his  condition  did
not exist prior to his military service.  The  statements  in  his  military
medical records are false and untrue.  He has never stated to any doctor  or
military official that he experienced knee problems prior  to  entering  the
military.  Therefore, the 10% reduction of  his  22%  disability  rating  is
unwarranted.

In support of the  appeal,  applicant  submits  extracts  from  his  service
medical records and a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force  on  4 January  1996  and
sought care for bilateral knee  pain  after  beginning  technical  training.
The applicant  was  referred  to  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  that
determined he should be referred to a Physical Evaluation  Board  (PEB)  for
bilateral  anterior  knee  pain/patellofemoral   syndrome,   refractory   to
conservative therapy.   On  12  June  1996,  applicant  appeared  before  an
Informal PEB (IPEB).  The IPEB  sustained  the  diagnosis  of  the  MEB  and
recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay.  The IPEB  rated
his condition at 20%, and applied a bilateral factor for a total  rating  of
22%.  However, the rating was reduced by 10% based on the existing prior  to
service (EPTS) condition.  The applicant agreed with the IPEB  findings  and
recommendation.  He was discharged on 16 August 1996, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-3212, Disability, Severance Pay, in the grade of airman basic  (E-
1).

The DVA  denied  his  request  for  service  connection  for  patellofemoral
syndrome of his knees on 2 December 1996.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  the  application  be  denied  and
states, in part, that at the time, the applicant did not contest the  IPEB’s
decision to decrease the 22% disability rating to 10%  because  his  service
medical records indicated the condition existed prior to service.   Further,
the applicant signed a Veterans Application for  Compensation  Pension  that
indicated he had  a  history  of  similar  episodes  in  the  past,  not  as
incapacitating  and  not  disclosed  upon  enlistment  (EPTS  with   service
aggravation).  Regardless of the  rating  percentage,  disability  severance
pay is calculated using a member’s base pay and years of  service,  not  the
disability rating.  Therefore, whether the disability rating is 10%  or  30%
has no effect on his eligibility for severance pay or the amount.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

When the recruiter  interviewed  him  he  was  asked  whether  he  had  knee
troubles and he indicated no.  However, he did further  explain  that  as  a
baseball catcher in 9th and 10th  grade  he  occasionally  experienced  knee
aches, but never sought medical attention.  At no time did  he  lie  or  not
disclose any information.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request and states, in  part,
that the applicant was treated fairly throughout the  Air  Force  disability
evaluation process and there were no false statements made  by  the  medical
examiners in determining his EPTS.  Further, the preponderance  of  evidence
reflects a fair and just decision was made  in  determining  his  disability
rating and no injustice occurred.
The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  to  have  his
severance pay calculated based on the grade of airman.  AFPC/DPPPWB  states,
in part, that applicant’s promotion to airman was to be effective on 4  July
1996; however, he became ineligible for the promotion on 25 June 1996,  when
he was found physically unfit.  Applicant’s  DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of
Release or Discharge from the Armed Forces, issued in conjunction  with  his
16 August 1996 discharge incorrectly reflects his grade as airman.

The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 8  October  2004  for  review  and  response  within  30  days.
However, as of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  relief
should be granted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,  we  do
not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The  offices  of  primary
responsibility have adequately  addressed  applicant’s  contentions  and  we
agree with their opinions and adopt the rationale  expressed  as  the  basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  that
he has suffered either  an  error  or  an  injustice.   Hence,  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 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  BC-2004-00052
in Executive Session on 2 November 2004, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Feb 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 May 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Jun 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Aug 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 31 Aug 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Sep 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair