RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00447
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 AUG 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow reentry
into the military.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
An MRI of his knee showed that he suffered severe bone bruising. He
was discharged due to having a bipatella, but his physician informed
him that his knee pain was caused by an injury that was not pre-
existing.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on
1 Nov 06 for a term of 4 years.
On 7 Dec 06, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for erroneous
enlistment. The basis for the action was his history of knee pain not
documented on his DD Form 2807-1, Report of Medical History. Had the
Air Force been aware of this condition prior to his enlistment he
would have been ineligible to enlist.
He was advised of his rights, waived his right to consult counsel, and
elected not to submit statements on his own behalf. The base legal
office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient. The
discharge authority approved the discharge of erroneous entry and
ordered an uncharacterized entry-level separation.
On 14 Dec 06, he was administratively discharged with an
uncharacterized entry-level separation, under the provisions of AFI 36-
3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (Erroneous Entry). He
received an RE code of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable
discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of
service”. He served 1 month and 14 days total active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant
states in part, that despite the applicant’s claim that he bruised his
knee during Basic Military Training the congenital anomaly still
existed and was still unfitting prior to his military service. The
issue is not that he failed to inform his recruiter of his condition
or that the recruiter failed to document that information. The issue
is that he has a condition that could exacerbate with physical
activity at any time and poses an unacceptable risk of recurrence,
jeopardizing a mission, and putting himself and fellow Air Force
members at risk. The preponderance of evidence of the record shows
that his knee condition clearly existed prior to service and was not
permanently aggravated by military service. An entry level separation
was the appropriate course of action. Action and disposition in this
case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force
directives that implement the law.
The BCMR 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 the applicant on
27 Aug 2007, for review and comment within 30 days. 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the BCMR
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. Therefore, 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 Docket Number BC-2007-
00447 in Executive Session on 25 October 2007, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 07.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Aug 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 07.
KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01322
After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe the applicant’s narrative reason for separation is too harsh. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of her entry-level separation on 30 September 2002, the narrative reason for her separation was Secretarial Authority and Separation Program Designator was...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-02496
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02496 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: RAY M SHEPARD HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Feb 13, 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His disability rating of 20 percent awarded to him by the Air Force Physical Evaluation Board be increased to 60 percent and include the injuries to his neck and left knee. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01019
She received an RE code of 2Q “Personnel Medically Retired or Discharged”. The BCMR 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 the applicant on 19 Sep 07, for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however; we agree with the opinion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03280
On 13 September 2006, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant’s discharge for erroneous enlistment. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the evidence of record shows the applicant’s conditions, back pain and asthma, were appropriately managed and his Entry Level Separation was appropriate. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02084
On 1 October 2004, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) referred the case to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), which on 20 January 2005, found the applicant unfit due to chronic neck pain and concluded that his medical condition prevented him from reasonably performing the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating and recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent. By law, payment of DVA disability compensation and military disability pay is...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03887
There was no evidence to support a higher rating at the time of separation and the preponderance of evidence supports a disability rating of 20 percent. The BCMR Medical Advisor’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the BCMR Medical Advisor’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 12 Jan 07 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02651
On interview by the examining physician, he reported his hay fever was seasonal due to pollen and that there were no symptoms of asthma since age 10 (at the time standards allowed for enlistment of individuals with a history of childhood asthma but no problems after age 12). Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03266
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant advises that no change in the applicant’s records is warranted. The preponderance of evidence of the record shows that applicant’s condition posed a continued significant risk to himself and the Air Force mission, and that an entry level separation was the appropriate course of action. A review of the applicant’s military medical records shows that he had a history of asthma...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01880
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been offered an Air Force disability retirement based on a medical disqualifying condition that was incurred while he was on active duty and found to be present while on active duty. The Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES), by law, only compensates those medical conditions that were disabling at the time of discharge. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation, with attachment...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00224
The physician states the applicant could perform ADLs “with difficulty.” AFPC/DPFC certified the claim as not qualifying for a covered loss given the recommendation from his physician and accompanying medical documentation. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant’s wife provided a statement. The applicant’s complete response,...