RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02456
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 FEBRUARY 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her son’s  uncharacterized  discharge  be  changed  to  a  medical  or
honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her son was separated from the Air  Force  due  to  arthritis  in  his
knees; however, this is not reflected on his DD Form 214.

In support of her request, the applicant provided a statement, copy of
her son’s DD Form 214, a letter from her minister and a response to  a
congressional inquiry.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s son enlisted in  the  Regular  Air  Force  (RegAF)  on
1 April 1983, as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 2 May 1983, the servicemember was seen at the Orthopedic Clinic for
pain in both knees.  The servicemember stated the pain  began  without
trauma, he further  stated  he  had  similar  symptoms  in  the  past,
including knee tightness and occasional buckling.  The servicemember’s
pain in Basic Training began without trauma and  was  associated  with
prolonged standing  and  physical  conditioning.   In  the  past,  his
symptoms had been related to cold weather, prolonged conditioning  and
kneeling.  The servicemember was prescribed  Motrin  and  referred  to
physical therapy.

On 11 May 1983 the servicemember returned to the Orthopedic Clinic for
follow-up.  The servicemember stated his pain had  not  improved  with
medication and that his pain actually increased with physical therapy.
 The servicemember was diagnosed with chondromalacia patellae, greater
in the right knee than in the left, resulting in  incapacitating  knee
pain.  Line of Duty – No, Existed Prior to Service (EPTS).

On 18  May  1983,  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  convened  and
confirmed the finding of chondromalacia patellae, greater in the right
knee than in the left,  resulting  in  incapacitating  knee  pain  and
recommended the servicemember be discharged from the service by reason
of physical disability which existed prior to service and has not been
aggravated permanently thereby.

On 24 May 1983, the servicemember  was  notified  of  his  commander’s
intent to recommend him for discharge from the Air Force for erroneous
enlistment under the provisions of Air Force Regulation  (AFR)  39-10.
The specific reason for the discharge action was:

      A MEB found that the servicemember  did  not  meet  the  minimum
medical standards for enlistment.  He was not qualified for enlistment
because of the following condition chondromalacia patellae, greater in
the right knee than in the  left,  resulting  in  incapacitating  knee
pain.

The commander advised the servicemember  of  his  right  to  consult
legal counsel, and an appointment had been  made  for  him,  and  to
submit statements in his own behalf.

On 24 May  1983,  the  servicemember  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification of discharge and waived his right  to  consult  counsel
and to submit a statement.  He also acknowledged  if  the  discharge
was approved he would not be eligible for a disability retirement or
severance pay and would not be eligible to reenlist in the Air Force
as long as the disqualifying enlistment defect existed.

On 25 May 1983, the discharge authority directed the servicemember  be
discharged with an entry-level separation.

On  26  May  1983,   the   servicemember   was   separated   with   an
uncharacterized discharge under the provisions of AFM 39-10, failed to
meet physical standards for enlistment.  The  servicemember  served  1
month and 26 days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.    They   state   based   on   the
documentation on file in the servicemember’s master personnel records,
the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharged regulation.  The discharge  was  within
the discretion of the discharge authority.

Airmen  are  given  an  entry-level  separation  when  separation   is
initiated in the first 180 days of  continuous  active  service.   The
Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a servicemember served  less
than 180 days of continuous active service, it would be unfair to  the
servicemember and the service to characterize their limited service.

The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in  the  processing  of  the  servicemember’s
discharge.  Furthermore, she did not provided any facts to  warrant  a
change to the servicemember’s entry-level separation.

A complete 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
22 September 2006, for review and  response.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

The applicant submitted a  letter  dated  15  October  2006  from  her
minister (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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   an   injustice.    After   careful
consideration of the circumstances  of  this  case  and  the  evidence
provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded the  discharge  action
the servicemember received was in error or  unjust.   The  applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as  the  basis
for our conclusion that the servicemember has not been the  victim  of
an  error  or  injustice.   Shortly  after  entering  basic   military
training,  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  a  medical  condition
(Chondromalacia Patellae) that existed prior to service, which had  it
been  detected  at  that  time  should  have  disqualified   him   for
enlistment.  As  such,  the  permanence  and  potential  complications
associated with his condition make it incompatible with  the  physical
demands of active military service.  In this  respect,  the  discharge
the servicemember received indicates  an  uncharacterized  entry-level
separation for serving less than six months of service which would  be
appropriate considering that the applicant served 56  days  of  active
military service.  Based on the documentation  in  the  srvicemember's
records,  it  appears  the  processing  of  the  discharge   and   the
characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in
accordance with Air Force policy.  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.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  is  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-
2006-02456  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 8 Aug 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Aug 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Pastor G. P. S., dated 15 Oct 06.




                             MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                             Panel Chair