RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00353 

 INDEX CODE: 107.00 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be corrected to reflect her medical conditions were service 
connected. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) established that her 
medical disabilities were service connected and rated her at a 
40 percent disability rating. She disputes the fact that she had a 
pre-existing medical condition when she was separated from the Air 
Force. She has never been diagnosed with a condition involving her 
knees and/or never received medical care prior to entering the Air 
Force. She did admit to having a one-time occurrence of 
experiencing a shin splint that occurred approximately 6 years 
prior to joining the military and did not require medical 
attention. If she had a pre-existing condition, she was not aware 
of it and never experienced any effects from what the Air Force 
diagnosed as “Patellofemoral Syndrome.” Since the DVA found her 
disability service connected, she believes the Air Force should 
have done the same. 

 

She also has a concern that her feet injuries were not included in 
any of her separation paperwork or separation codes. She did not 
discover this discrepancy until after she separated. She was on a 
profile waiver that allowed her to wear athletic shoes due to 
calluses that were forming on her feet. The problems with her feet 
were documented in her medical records and did not exist prior to 
entering the Air Force. She has since had two surgeries and still 
experiences problems that may require future surgeries. Prior to 
entering the Air Force she underwent a physical through the 
Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) medical personnel and 
her feet were listed as “normal and asymptomatic.” 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her DVA 
rating, a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty, copies of personal letters, and 
excerpts from her medical records. 

 


Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted into the Air Force Reserve on 6 Oct 08. The 
applicant was notified by her commander that he was recommending 
her for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 
36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.14, under 
basis for discharge for erroneous enlistment, with an entry-level 
separation. The specific reason for this action was for not 
meeting medical standards to enlist. The applicant should not have 
been allowed to join the Air Force because she has “Patellofemoral 
Syndrome.” The commander did not request a disability separation 
because the medical staff found her unqualified. The applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and her right to 
consult with legal counsel, and the right to submit statements on 
her own behalf. After a legal review of the case, the assistant 
staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient. The applicant 
received an entry-level separation on 20 Nov 08 after serving 
1 month and 15 days on active duty. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS does not provide a recommendation. DPSOS states that 
they must defer the question as to whether the applicant’s medical 
conditions were pre-existing prior service and whether the 
conditions were further aggravated by training (active duty) to the 
appropriate medical authorities. 

 

The DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant states that according to the clinical notes in the 
applicant’s records, on 10 Nov 08, the applicant indicated that she 
had knee problems prior to enlistment but had not sought medical 
care and failed to report this information to MEPS prior to her 
enlistment. Although the applicant did not seek medical care for 
her knee problems prior to enlistment, this does not negate the 
fact that a history of knee problems were pre-existing and was not 
indicated on the MEPS DD Form 2807, Report of Medical History. It 
is noted the applicant was placed on limited physical activity 
profile due to knee problems less than three weeks after 
enlistment. The applicant also mentions she received a 20 percent 
service connection disability rating from the DVA for both knees. 
The Medical Consultant addresses how the Department of Defense 
(DoD), operating under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only 
provides disability compensation for the medical condition(s) which 
is (are) the cause for career termination, and then only for the 
degree of impairment present at the time of final military 


disposition. It must be noted the Air Force disability boards must 
rate disabilities based on the member’s condition at the time of 
evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at the time. 
It is then the charge of the DVA to pick up where the Air Force 
leaves off. The DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any 
illness or injury determined service-incurred or aggravated, 
without regard to its demonstrated impact upon a service member’s 
retainability, fitness to serve, or underlying reason for 
separation. The Medical Consultant considered whether or not a 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was appropriate; however, 
collectively given the timing of the applicant’s symptoms (less 
than three weeks after entry and without any intervening new 
traumatic occurrence, e.g., fall, twisting, sprain, or external 
blunt force injury), and the admission of knee problems prior to 
enlistment, an MEB would not be appropriate since this syndrome was 
likely not service incurred. Nevertheless, had the applicant met 
an MEB and her case referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), 
her condition would have, more likely than not, been determined to 
have existed prior to service, resulting in her discharge under 
other than Chapter 61, 10 USC. Therefore, the Medical Consultant 
is of the opinion that a change in her separation designation to a 
service connected disability is not medically justified. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 24 Sep 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, this office has received no response. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. After a thorough 
review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we 
are not persuaded that the reason for her discharge should be 
changed. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we 
do not find her arguments sufficiently persuasive to override the 
rationale provided by the BCMR Medical Consultant. Therefore, we 
agree with the opinion 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 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-2010-00353 in Executive Session on 2 Nov 10, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 20 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 21 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Sep 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair