RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03293
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 JUN 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His character of service be changed from “Uncharacterized” to “Medical
Discharge.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was separated from the Air Force after an injury to his left  knee.
The injury happened while he was in basic training.  It was not a pre-
existing  condition.   He  has  been  granted  a  10 percent  service-
connected disability for his injury  by  the  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA).

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  copies  of  his
separation document and DVA rating decision.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 Jul  04  in  the
grade of airman first class.

On 11 Aug 04, the applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending the applicant  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  for
erroneous enlistment.  The reason for this action was  he  received  a
medical narrative summary that found he did not meet  minimum  medical
standards to enlist.  He should not have been allowed to join the  Air
Force  because  of  a  left  medial  collateral  ligament  tear.   The
applicant was advised of his rights in the matter and  that  an  entry
level separation would be recommended.

On 11 Aug 04, the  Office  of  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the
discharge case file to  be  legally  sufficient  and  recommended  the
applicant be separated with an entry level separation.

On 14 Aug 04, the discharge authority approved  the  discharge  action
and directed the applicant be given an  entry  level  separation  with
uncharacterized service.

On 19 Aug 04, the applicant was separated under the provisions of  AFI
36-3208 (Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards) with an  entry
level separation.  He was credited with 23 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommends denial  noting  the  applicant  was
administratively discharged with an entry level separation due  to  a
left knee injury that occurred prior to entering active duty.  It was
an injury to the medial collateral ligament associated with an  acute
patellar  dislocation/subluxation  resulting  in  recurrent  patellar
subluxation that occurred with twisting  motion  of  the  lower  leg.
Following the initial injury and prior to entering  active  duty  for
basic training, physical therapy notes recorded recurrent subluxation
occurring after the original injury. Following an  injury  associated
with acute dislocation/subluxation of the patella, the treatment with
physical therapy was indicated.   However,  the  evidence  of  record
showed the applicant did not complete a course of  physical  therapy.
Although his pain decreased by Jun 04 with inactivity, the underlying
abnormality persisted and resulted  in  recurrent  dislocation  while
doing a drill  (marching)  that  involved  a  twisting  motion.   The
occurrence while drilling did not represent a new injury, but  rather
was a manifestation of the sequelae  of  the  original  injury.   The
condition was not aggravated by military service beyond  the  natural
progression of the condition.  Although primary medical documentation
from his medical evaluation while on active duty  was  not  available
for review, a 9 Aug 04 record entry  reflected  the  medical  opinion
that the condition was not caused or aggravated by military  service.
The Medical Consultant opines the nature of the original  injury  and
the pattern of recurring  patellar  subluxation  beginning  prior  to
entry on active duty supports the opinion  of  Air  Force  physicians
evaluating the applicant while on active duty.

According to the Medical Consultant, the preponderance of the evidence
of the record showed the action and  disposition  in  this  case  were
proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air  Force  directives
which implement the law, and that, in  his  view,  no  change  in  the
records is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  22
Dec 06 for review and  response  within  30  days.   However,  it  was
returned as undeliverable (Exhibit D).

On 8 Jan 07, a  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  resent  to
applicant at another address for his review  and  response  within  30
days.  As of this date, no response has been received by  this  office
(Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed,  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and  the
documentation  presented  in  support  of  his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive  to  override  the  rationale  provided  by   the   Medical
Consultant.  The evidence of record reflects he  was  given  an  entry
level separation for failed  medical/physical  procurement  standards.
No evidence has been presented that would lead us to believe the entry
level separation was improper or contrary to the  governing  directive
under which it was effected.  In view of the  foregoing,  and  in  the
absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we adopt  the  Medical
Consultant’s rationale as the basis for our decision the applicant has
failed to sustain his burden of  establishing  that  he  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 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-
2005-03293 in Executive Session on 17 Jan 07 and 12 Feb 07  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 19 Dec 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Dec 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jan 07.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair