RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04510 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her uncharacterized entry level separation be changed to a 
medical discharge for a “service connected” disability. 

 

2. Her narrative reason for separation of “Failed 
Medical/Physical Procurement Standards” be changed. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The Narrative Summary states her condition of patellofemoral pain 
syndrome (PFPS) was not present at the time of the medical 
history intake and physical examination and the doctor crossed 
out “Existed Prior to Enlistment.” 

 

She did not have knee problems prior to her enlistment. 

 

Her Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) claim was denied based 
on a preexisting condition; however, the narrative summary 
clearly says the condition “did not” exist prior to enlistment. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a Narrative 
Summary from an Air Force physician, and a VA Form 21-4138, Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Statement in Support of 
Claim. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 2 Dec 98, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 14 Dec 98, while in basic military training (BMT) the 
applicant presented to the Dispensary with the complaint of 
bilateral knee pain. 

 

On 4 Jan 99, a medical narrative summary found the applicant’s 
condition of PFPS was preventing her from training, was a 
disqualifying condition, and was not present at the time of the 
medical history intake and physical examination. 

 


On 11 Jan 99, the applicant was notified by her commander that 
she was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for 
erroneous enlistment. The reason for the proposed action was her 
commander received a medical narrative summary, dated 4 Jan 99 
that found the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards 
to enlist and that the condition existed prior to entering 
military service. The applicant should not have been allowed to 
join the Air Force because of PFPS. 

 

She acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, waived 
her right to counsel, and her right to submit statements in her 
own behalf. The case file was found legally sufficient to 
support discharge and the discharge authority approved the 
separation. 

 

On 14 Jan 99, she was discharged with an uncharacterized entry 
level separation by reason of failed medical/physical procurement 
standards. She served on active duty for a period of 1 month and 
13 days. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states the applicant’s 
separation was completed in accordance with established policy 
and administrative procedures. Her history of the condition 
renders her unsuitable for military service. 

 

At the time of her induction examination she may not have been 
aware that she had the condition. It came to light during BMT 
and was aggravated by strenuous physical activity. 

 

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the documentation on 
file in the master personnel records supports the basis for the 
discharge and the applicant’s entry level separation. The 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority. 

 

Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service 
characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 
days of 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, her 
uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance with DoD and 
Air Force instructions. 

 

The applicant’s medical records from the training clinic were 
unavailable for review. Absent documentation, there is a 
presumption of regularity in which the applicant was afforded due 
process and the discharge was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Although 


the applicant states the condition did not exist prior to her 
enlistment, her medical condition does not meet assessment 
standards. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

She has talked to several benefits counselors that have confirmed 
her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, has been changed to reflect an honorable discharge. 
Therefore, someone at the Review Board Office must have agreed 
with her and the physician of record that her condition was not a 
pre-existing condition. 

 

In paragraph 5, of the AETC/SGPS memorandum, it clearly states 
“At the time of her induction examination she may not have been 
aware that she had the condition. It came to light during basic 
training at Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas and was aggravated 
by strenuous physical activity.” 

 

One of the qualifications for a service connected disability is 
that a veteran had to sustain an injury or disease that happened 
while on active duty, or was made worse/aggravated by active 
military service. 

 

At the time of her induction, she was given an examination and 
performed certain movements. The physician during intake passed 
her. If there was a problem, he should have caught it at this 
time. 

 

The AFPC/DPSOS memorandum states “the commander cited a medical 
narrative summary dated 4 Jan 99 that found the applicant did not 
meet minimum medical standards to enlist and stated the condition 
existed prior to entering military service.” The Narrative 
Summary states just the opposite. The commander marked through 
the Existed Prior to Enlistment and Erroneous Enlistment. The 
author of the DPSOS memorandum states “the applicant should not 
have been allowed to join the Air Force because of PFPS.” PFPS 
is not a condition she had prior to intake. The pain occurred 
during strenuous activity that aggravated to the point of 
discharge. Everyday the pain is a constant reminder of what she 
endured trying to serve her country. 

 

The Review Board is saying she should not have been allowed in 
the Air Force; however, as a result she has all the problems 
mentioned above. Who should be accountable? By denying her a 
service connected disability its sends a message the Air Force is 
not accountable, and they are; the Air Force made a mistake. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 


 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant agrees the applicant’s knee pain, 
referred to a Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome (PFPS), likely did not 
clinically manifest until the applicant participated in recurring 
running activities required of BMT. However, individuals 
presenting with the condition so soon after entering military 
service, without a history of acute trauma, bring into question 
their ability to serve and are generally released as an entry 
level separation (within 180 days of enlistment). Under existing 
policies service in these instances is determined 
“uncharacterized.” Nevertheless, there remains the unanswered 
question of whether the applicant’s condition was permanently 
worsened by her physical activities (after one week of running). 
The Consultant states the anatomic malpositioning of both of the 
applicant’s patellae, referred to as a “lateral tilt” on X-rays 
of her knees [and which DID exist prior to service], was the 
substrate upon which the repeated motion of the malpositioned 
knee cap, as it glided within the femoral [trochlear] groove, 
predisposed her to experience knee pain. It is this repeated 
“maltracking” of the patella with activity that resulted in the 
pain. Without an arthroscopic evaluation at or about the time of 
the applicant’s separation, it is virtually impossible to 
determine whether the applicant’s physical activities then 
resulted in fraying of the cartilage, or permanent damage, or 
accelerated degenerateive changes within her knees, above and 
beyond the expected natural progression of the disorder. Failing 
conservative treatment measures, consideration of a surgical 
intervention could have been made, e.g., a release of the fibrous 
tissue retinaculum commonly causing the patellar tilt, thereby 
allowing the patella to assume a more anatomically correct 
position, with resultant improvement/resolution of symptoms. The 
Medical Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of 
proof of a permanent worsening of her knee functioning as a 
result of activities during BMT. Should the Board render the 
benefit of doubt in favor of the applicant, noting her apparent 
continued symptoms 11 years after discharge, she would not be 
eligible for disability compensation by the Military Department 
due to her short period of service; although it may open the door 
for care and compensation by the DVA. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 26 Aug 11, a copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation 
was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days. To date, a response has not been received by this 
office (Exhibit H). 

 


_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 recommendations 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and the BCMR 
Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion 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. 

 

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 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-2010-04510 in Executive Session on 4 Oct 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2010-04510 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 19 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 18 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 May 11, w/atchs. 


 Exhibit G. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 25 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Aug 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair