RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02886
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His entry level separation be changed to a medical discharge. 

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Jun 11, he was rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs 
with a 40 percent service-connected disability and therefore, 
his separation should be changed to a medical discharge.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of a 
letter summarizing his benefits from the DVA.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 3 Jul 01, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force,  
for a period six years, in the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1).  

A medical narrative summary, dated 28 Sep 01, found the 
applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist.  

On 21 Nov 01, the applicant was discharged under the provisions 
of AFI 36-3208, Separation of Airmen, with a reason for 
separation of “failed medical/physical procurement standards,” 
with uncharacterized service.  He was credited with 4 months and 
19 days of active duty service.

On 1 Jun 11, the applicant was rated by the DVA with an overall 
and combined rating of 40 percent for Bilateral knee tendonitis, 
with pes anserine bursitis and iliotibial band syndrome and 
Bilateral ankle posterior tibialis strain.  

Other relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted 
from the applicant's military records, are contained in the 
letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.  
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this 
Record of Proceedings.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends denial.  SGPS found the separation was 
completed in accordance with established policy and 
administrative procedures.  On 28 Sep 01, the applicant was seen 
at the clinic where he was diagnosed with a foot problem that 
was disqualifying for military service.  It was felt that the 
condition existed prior to entering the service and he did not 
disclose this information to the Military Entrance Processing 
Station (MEPS) chief medical officer (CMO).  It was also felt 
that the condition was aggravated by training beyond the normal 
progression of the ailment.  He stated that he understood the 
diagnoses and treatment plan.  Subsequently he was processed for 
an entry level separation.

In addition, they note, it is unknown that if the applicant 
would have disclosed this condition to the CMO he would have 
been found disqualified, but it is clearly felt that the rigors 
of basic training aggravated the condition to the point he could 
not continue the required physical training.  He applied for and 
received VA disability after separation, which does not validate 
that the condition was caused by the military training.  

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, stating, in part, based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority  

On 6 Jun 11, the applicant states that he was notified by the 
DVA that his reason for discharge was based on a service 
connected disability.  However, his reason for separation on his 
DD Form 214 is correct.  On 20 Nov 01, the discharge authority 
approved his separation and directed that he be separated with 
an uncharacterized entry level separation.  The applicant should 
not have been allowed to join the Air Force because of bilateral 
pes planovalgus.  Had the Air Force known of this condition at 
the time of his enlistment, he would not have been allowed entry 
into the military.  The Air Force was not asked to give the 
applicant a disability separation because the medical staff 
found him unqualified and his medical condition did not meet 
assessment standards.  The applicant's service characterization 
is correct as reflected on his DD Form 214.  Airmen are given 
entry level separation/uncharacterized service 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.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 30 Oct 12 for review and comment 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 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, the applicant’s case has undergone an 
exhaustive review by the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPRs) and we did not find the evidence provided 
sufficient to overcome their assessment of the case.  Therefore, 
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the OPRs and 
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that 
the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has 
suffered from an error or 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.

________________________________________________________________

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-2012-02886 in Executive Session on 14 Feb 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 12, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 17 Oct 12.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 22 Oct 12.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 12.




                                   Panel Chair