RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02151 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His record be corrected to reflect he was not discharged but 
referred for a medical review. 

 

2. In the alternative, his records be corrected to reflect that 
he received an honorable discharge under “Secretarial 
Authority.” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. Prior to entering military service, he received surgical 
treatment for a medial meniscus tear of his right knee and was 
medically cleared to enlist. The Air Force had all the relevant 
information and there was no derangement of his right knee when 
he joined the Air Force. 

 

2. While in basic military training (BMT), he began experiencing 
pain in his right knee and was subsequently diagnosed as having 
an “internal derangement of the right knee.” It was not a 
preexisting condition that the Air Force was unaware of when it 
permitted him to enlist. He did not meet the criteria required 
under AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for a 
discharge based on erroneous enlistment. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a 
five page supplemental statement, AF Form 3005, Guaranteed 
Aptitude Area Enlistment Agreement Non-Prior Service - United 
States Air Force; AF Form 3008, Supplement to Enlistment 
Agreement – United States Air Force; DD Form 4/1, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United 
States; DD Form 2807-1, Report of Medical History; DD Form 2808, Report of Medical Examination; medical records and other 
documents in support of his application. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 


 

On 30 Jun 09, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

 

According to SGPS, on 3 Jul 09, the applicant sought an 
evaluation of his knee pain at Wilford Hall Medical Center 
emergency room after attempting to stand from a squatting/seated 
position (presumably on the floor). Throughout Jul 09, the 
applicant was treated for his injury with no resolution 

 

On 10 Aug 09, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force 
under the provisions of AFPD 36-22, Air Force Military Training 
and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 
5.14. for Erroneous Enlistment. The applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the notification of discharge, waived his right to 
seek counsel and to submit a statement on his own behalf. 

 

On 11 Aug 09, the case was reviewed and determined to be legally 
sufficient to support separation. 

 

On 12 Aug 09, the discharge authority approved his entry level 
separation (ELS). 

 

On 14 Aug 09, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force 
with an entry-level separation, with an uncharacterized 
character of service in the grade of airman first class. He 
served 1 month and 15 days of total active service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AETC/SGPS did not provide a recommendation. SGPS states the 
applicant’s separation was done in accordance with (IAW) 
established policy and administrative procedures. Even though 
the applicant’s condition rendered him unsuitable to continue 
military service; his condition has since been corrected. 

 

SGPS states they have no objection to the Board changing the 
applicant’s reentry (RE) code to allow him to reenter military 
service and changing the characterization of service to 
honorable. 

 

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states Airmen are given 
entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization 
when separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous 
active service. 

 


The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served 
less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair 
to the member and the service to characterize their limited 
service. Therefore, his uncharacterized service is correct and 
IAW with DoD and Air Force instructions. 

 

The applicant’s discharge to include the characterization of his 
service was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant found no regulatory reason to change 
the applicant’s entry-level separation, reason for discharge, or 
the uncharacterized service. However, he agrees the applicant 
should be offered a change in his RE code to allow him to apply 
for reentry into military service. 

 

The Medical Consultant found no error in the use of the entry- 
level separation provision of AFI 36-3208 for the applicant’s 
knee condition, which had shown no evidence of permanent service 
aggravation, interfered with the completion of his training, and 
was discovered within the first 180 days of service. Under such 
circumstances, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Air Force 
has determined that it would be unfair to characterize a 
member’s service following such a short duration of service; 
hence the issuance of an uncharacterized character of service. 

 

Had it been determined the applicant's knee ailment was 
permanently aggravated by military service, it is probable that 
he would have been eligible for processing through the military 
Disability Evaluation System for a medical separation, under 
provisions of AFI 36-3212 and an honorable character of service. 

 

The Medical Consultant opines that the 26 Aug 09 intra-operative 
evidence of a previous "attempted" surgical repair of the 
applicant's damaged medial meniscus, that "had not healed 
whatsoever" and was discovered within days of his separation, 
indicates the damage was more likely than not already present at 
the time the applicant entered military service. Therefore, the 
Consultant opines that had the Air Force known the applicant's 
repair had been unsuccessful, he likely would not have been 
cleared to enter military service at the time. However, the 
Medical Consultant opines that since over two years have passed 
since the applicant’s most recent surgical treatment, it is 
reasonable to change his RE-code, if requested, to allow him to 
re-enter military service; noting this recommendation has also 
been made by the Air Force waiver authority for pre-existing 
medical conditions. 

 

 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s counsel responded that the BCMR Medical 
Consultant states the applicant is requesting a change to his 
discharge to Honorable, Medical. However, the applicant is 
requesting he be referred for medical evaluation by the 
Disability Evaluation System (DES). 

 

The Consultant describes the evidence as showing that the repair 
was unsuccessful and thus the applicant entered the Air Force 
erroneously because he did not meet the requirements to enlist. 
The Consultant concedes that if the applicant's knee ailment was 
aggravated by military service he would have likely been 
eligible for processing under the DES. 

The Consultant argues that the repair was unsuccessful because 
the applicant reinjured his knee shortly after entering basic 
military training (BMT). However, there is no underlying basis 
for this argument other than the fact the applicant did in fact 
hurt his knee four days after starting BMT. 

 

The Consultant argues that the post operative notes from the 
2008 repair show that the applicant had some residual symptoms 
after the surgery. However, the medical records show that he 
recovered well from his surgery and at six months his only 
symptom was an occasional "give way of the knee." However, this 
is only a partial excerpt from his six month follow up. 

 

Specifically, he reported, "that he jumps down from a height of 
approximately 2-1/2 to 3 feet at home and occasionally the knee 
will want to give way when he lands." The doctor also reported 
that his "meniscus is healing well. He has no recurrent 
mechanical symptoms or pain. He continues to have some mild 
quadriceps atrophy, and I have discussed that he needs to work 
diligently on increasing his strength." Counsel states there is 
a difference between the knee wanting to give way and the knee 
actually giving way. The applicant’s description of the knee 
wanting to give was consistent with his mild quadriceps atrophy. 
It is important to note that the doctor stated he had no 
recurrent "mechanical symptoms." In short, his six month follow 
up is consistent with a knee repair that was successful and 
healing well. Further, he underwent an entrance physical on 
31 Mar 2009 and was cleared to enlist. This is also consistent 
with a successful repair of his meniscus. 

 

The Consultant points to the post operative notes from his 
second surgery on 17 Sep 2009 to support his argument that his 
first knee repair was unsuccessful. Doctor B, the applicant’s 
second surgeon, made a notation in his medical record that 
"there was a tear that had been attempted to be repaired and had 


not healed whatsoever." The Consultant argues that this note 
described the first repair prior to the injury. However, we 
have consulted with Doctor B and he clarified that he did not 
mean that note to indicate the original repair was unsuccessful. 
He was describing the condition of the knee as he saw it. 
Clearly at that point the prior repair was torn apart. Doctor B 
states that given the length of time from the surgery to the new 
injury and the lack of symptoms after the surgery, he had to 
assume that the tear was the result of a new injury and not the 
result of a failed surgery. At the time Doctor B saw the 
applicant's medial meniscus tear the prior repair was torn apart 
and any opinion on the prior repair would be speculation. Given 
the clarification, the Consultant's reliance on Doctor B's post 
operative description of the prior repair is misplaced 

 

The Consultant does support changing the applicant's RE Code to 
allow him to reenter the military. In support of this the 
Consultant cites the Department of Defense (DoD) medical 
standard for entry after knee surgery contained in DoD 
Instruction 6130.3, Medical Standards for Appointment, 
Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services, which states 
"history of surgical reconstruction of knee ligaments does meet 
the standard if 12 months have elapsed since reconstruction, and 
the knee is asymptomatic and stable." This is exactly the 
standard upon which the applicant entered the Air Force in 2009. 
It was a year and almost four months from the time of his 
surgery to his enlistment and the new injury. He was 
asymptomatic or he would not have been allowed to enlist. The 
Consultant's argument is just as valid for his enlistment in 
2009. 

Based on Doctor B's clarification and DoDI 6130.3 the 
appropriate determination is that the applicant entered the Air 
Force after a successful knee surgery. He then reinjured his 
knee in BMT. Using the standard in DoDI 6130.3 only for the RE 
Code analysis and not the initial entry analysis is unjust. 
Since Doctor B has clarified his original post operative notes 
the only appropriate determination is that he had a new injury 
in BMT and should have been referred for disability evaluation 
vice being discharged under AFI 36-3208. 

 

Finally, counsel states that just changing the applicant's RE 
Code is not a sufficient remedy. He was involuntarily separated 
from the Air Force almost two and a half years ago. He is now 
27 years old and has moved on with his career. Therefore, the 
only remedy with any real impact is to refer him to the 
Disability Evaluation System. 

 

Counsel’s complete evaluation with attachment, is at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 22 Feb 12 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit H). As of this date, this office has not received a 
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 an error or injustice. The 
applicant requests that he be processed through the disability 
evaluation system (DES) or in the alternative, he receive an 
honorable discharge under Secretarial Authority. The 
applicant’s counsel asserts the applicant’s knee injury 
originally suffered in 2008, prior to entry on active duty in 
2009 should not be considered as existed prior to service (EPTS) 
but aggravated by service contending that the applicant entered 
service under the same standards referenced by the Medical 
Consultant in support of his recommendation to change the 
applicant’s reentry code, that is, the applicant was 
asymptomatic and 12 months had elapsed since the reconstruction 
of the knee. Even if we concede this point, we are not 
persuaded the applicant’s condition should not be considered as 
EPTS. It is well established in the record that the applicant 
suffered the injury prior to entering service and within only 
3 days of entering service suffered problems with the same knee. 
In our view the preponderance of evidence supports that the 
injury should be considered EPTS rather than aggravated by 
military service. Additionally, we are not in agreement with 
the position of AETC/SGPS or the recommendation of the BCMR 
Medical Consultant that the applicant’s reentry code should be 
changed to allow him the opportunity to reenter service. In our 
view, the applicant’s prior medical history provides a high 
likelihood the rigors of military service would result in the 
same outcome. At any rate since the applicant’s counsel 
indicates they are not seeking reentry, this is a moot point. 
Regarding his alternative request for an honorable discharge 
under secretarial authority, as pointed out by DPSOS, Airmen are 
given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service 
characterization when separation is initiated in the first 
180 days continuous active service. Given the fact the 
applicant had less than 60 days of total active service, we find 
no error in his entry level separation. Therefore, we conclude 
that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has 
suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above 
and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-02151 in Executive Session on 21 Jun 12, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AETC/SGPS, dated 15 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 25 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 

 21 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 20 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 19 Jan 12, 

 w/atch. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Feb 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair