RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01490
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  of  2C   (involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level  separation
without characterization of service) be changed to an  RE  code  of
1C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her doctor advised her that she would be able  to  reenlist  within
six months if her medical condition changed, but with an RE code of
2C, she cannot.

In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a copy of an  extract
from her medical records (Standard Form 600,  Chronological  Record
of Medical Care, dated 7 Oct 03), and a copy of  a  diagnosis  from
her current physician.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  15  Jul  03  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 23 Oct  03,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant  for  erroneous  enlistment.
The reason for the proposed action was that a Chronological  Record
of Medical Care, dated 7 Oct 03, indicated she had  been  diagnosed
with Patello-Femoral Syndrome and it was determined  the  condition
existed prior to service and  was  not  permanently  aggravated  by
service.  Because of this condition, her ability to function  in  a
military environment was  significantly  impaired.   The  commander
recommended that the applicant be given an entry-level  separation.
On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the  discharge
notification.  She waived her  right  to  consult  counsel  and  to
submit statements in her own behalf.  On  23  Oct  03,  the  Chief,
Adverse Actions found the case file legally sufficient  to  support
separation and recommended she be  separated  with  an  entry-level
separation.   The  discharge  authority  approved  the  entry-level
separation with service uncharacterized.

The applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation on
30 Oct 03, by reason of “Erroneous Entry (Other),” and  was  issued
an RE code of 2C.  She was credited with 3 months and  16  days  of
active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed   this   application   and
recommended  denial.   The  applicant  completed   basic   military
training at the end of Aug 03 and  began  training  as  a  security
forces helper on 5 Sep 03.  On 19 Sep  03,  she  presented  to  the
trainee clinic reporting anteromedial  knee  pain  of  seven  weeks
duration made worse by any type of  running.   During  the  medical
evaluation it was determined that  past  medical  history  included
“occasional right knee pain prior to enlistment  for  two  -  three
years.”  She  was  diagnosed  with  patellofemoral  pain  syndrome,
placed on limited duty (no physical conditioning  or  running)  for
10 days and  prescribed  Motrin.   After  some  follow-up  and  re-
evaluation, the physician recorded the diagnosis as  patellofemoral
syndrome, and  also  wrote,  “patient  desires  to  go  home,”  and
recommended an entry level separation.

The fact applicant is doing well at this time does not predict that
she will not again experience duty limiting knee pain when  exposed
to  the  rigors  of  military  training.   Past   experience   with
patellofemoral pain syndrome refractory to rest and  medication  is
predictive of recurrence  under  similar  circumstances.   The  Air
Force cannot guarantee a sedentary occupation, and even members  in
sedentary occupations are required  to  maintain  physical  fitness
including running and are often  required  to  deploy  and  perform
vigorous  activities   in   operational   settings.    Action   and
disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance with Air
Force directives that implement the law.

The 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
on 10 Jan 05 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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.   Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that  she
has been the victim of an error or injustice.  At the time  members
are separated from the Air Force, they are  furnished  an  RE  code
predicated upon the quality of their service and the  circumstances
of their separation.  Applicant’s RE code of 2C accurately reflects
that she was involuntarily separated with an entry level separation
without characterization of  service.   The  applicant’s  case  has
undergone an exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical  Consultant  and
there is nothing in the evidence provided  by  the  applicant  that
would overcome his assessment of the case.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record, we believe that given the  circumstances
surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE code issued  was  in
accordance  with  the  governing  directives.   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-2004-01490 in Executive Session on 10 February 2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 05.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair