RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03497
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 MAY 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to  change  her  erroneous  enlistment  to  a
medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her foot condition did not exist prior to her entering the Air Force.

In support of her request, the  applicant  provided  a  statement  and
copies of various documents from her  discharge  package  and  medical
records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  (RegAF)  on  12 July
2005 as an airman basic (AB) for a period of six years.

The applicant began Basic Military Training (BMT) and on 20 July  2005
returned to unit from sick call after being seen by podiatry for  foot
pain.  Podiatry diagnosed  the  applicant  with  sesamoiditis  with  a
recommendation  for  placement  on  medical  hold  and  administrative
separation.  At the time of her enlistment medical  examination  prior
to entering the Air Force on 7 April 2005, no problems were identified
with her feet.

A Standard Form 600 dated 21  July  2005,  indicates  the  applicant’s
condition did not exist prior to service but was Line of Duty “no” and
lacks any further details.

On 28 July 2005, the applicant was notified of her commander’s  intent
to  recommend  her  for  an  entry-level  separation   for   erroneous
enlistment for the following reason:

A  medical  narrative  summary  dated  21  July  2005,  reflected  the
applicant did not meet the minimum medical standards to  enlist.   The
applicant should not have been allowed to join the Air  Force  because
of sesamoiditis.  A disability separation was  not  requested  because
the medical staff found the applicant unqualified.

The commander advised the applicant of her right  to  consult  legal
counsel, and if she so desired an appointment  would  be  made  upon
request, and to submit  statements  in  her  own  behalf.   She  was
advised that failure to consult with counsel  or  submit  statements
could constitute her waiver of her rights to do so.

On 28 July 2005, the applicant waived her right to  consult  counsel
and to submit  a  statement.   She  also  acknowledged  if  the  was
discharged she would not be eligible for a disability retirement  or
severance pay.

On 2 August 2005, the discharge authority approved the applicant  to
be discharged with an entry-level separation.

The  applicant  was  separated  with  an  uncharacterized  entry-level
separation on 5 August 2005  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,
Defective Enlistment, Erroneous Enlistment, in  the  grade  of  airman
basic.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  the  requested  relief  be
denied.  The Medical Consultant states the term sesamoiditis refers to
the painful inflammation of the soft tissue about the normal accessory
bones in the foot that are integral to tendon  functioning  about  the
associated joints (commonly the joint at the base of the  great  toe).
This  condition  commonly  occurs  in  healthy  athletes  and  usually
responds to conservative treatment (rest, taping, casting,  non-weight
bearing, and medication).

The  notification  memorandum  indicated  the   applicant   would   be
discharged under the  provisions  for  erroneous  enlistment  but  the
discharge certificate lists “failed medical/procurement standards”  as
the reasons for discharge (with a consistent separation code).   Thus,
the discharge certificate reflects the medical nature of the discharge
that the applicant requests.

There is  insufficient  medical  documentation  available  to  further
evaluate the nature  and  circumstances  of  the  applicant’s  medical
condition  and  determine  if  disability   processing   rather   than
administrative was more appropriate at the time of her discharge.  The
presumption of regularity applies and the current  evidence  available
for review does not support a change in military records.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6
October 2006, for review and response.  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 an error or injustice.  The applicant  contends  that
she did not have a foot  condition  prior  to  entering  active  duty.
After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and  the
evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded the narrative
reason for separation the applicant received was in error  or  unjust.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,  we  agree  with  the
opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and  adopt
his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the  applicant  has
not been the victim of an  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant  was
administratively discharged for failing  medical/physical  procurement
standards due to a diagnosis of  sesamoiditis  which  interfered  with
BMT.  The notification memorandum indicated the  applicant  was  being
discharged under the  provisions  of  erroneous  enlistment,  but  the
discharge certificate reflects “failed/medical  procurement  standards
as the  reason  for  discharge  with  a  consistent  separation  code.
Therefore the applicant’s DD Form 214 accurately reflects the  medical
nature  of  her  discharge.   The  discharge  the  applicant  received
indicates an uncharacterized entry-level separation for  serving  less
than six months of service which would be appropriate considering that
the applicant served 24 days of active military  service.   Therefore,
in view of the above and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-03497  in  Executive  Session  on  29  November  2006  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                       3 Oct 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Oct 06.




                             MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                             Panel Chair