AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02471 
COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:  
 
1.  His characterization of discharge be changed to honorable.   
 
2.  His narrative reason for discharge be changed.   
 
3.  He  be  disability  retired  with  a  service  connected,  post-
surgical 100 percent disability rating. 
 
3.  He be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses, time off work, 
and for his personal insurance costs. 
 
4.  He be promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4).   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  was  unjustly  forced  out  of  the  military  under  the  basis  of 
erroneous 
procurement 
standards)  subsequent  to  sustaining  a  knee  fracture  and  torn 
meniscus  during  basic  training.    However,  he  was  cleared  and 
declared fit by the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) 
prior to his enlistment.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant entered military service on 10 January 2012 and was 
involuntarily  discharged  with  an  entry-level  separation  on 
17 February  2012,  under  the  authority  of  Air  Force  Instruction 
36-3208,  with  uncharacterized  service,  by  reason  of  “Failed 
Medical/Physical  Procurement  Standards.”    Prior  to  service,  he 
had a long-standing history of undergoing prior knee surgery for 
meniscal injuries; most recently in December 2006 with follow-on 
care in 2007.   
 
An  extract  from  the  applicant’s  Basic  Military  Training  Record 
indicates  that  on  27  January  2012,  he  was  sent  to  the  Trainee 
Health Facility for sharp knee pains in his left knee, a result 
of  which  he  was  placed  on  medical  hold  pending  administrative 
release from service.   

medical/physical 

enlistment 

(failed 

 

 
On  11  February  2012,  the  applicant  was  notified  of  his 
commander’s intent to recommend the applicant for discharge from 
the  Air  Force  with  an  entry-level  separation  under  erroneous 
enlistment.    The  commander  cited  his  intent  was  based  on  a 
medical  narrative,  dated  27  January  2012,  indicating  the 
applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist into 
the military service.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification and waived his rights to consult with legal counsel 
and  to  submit  statements  in  his  own  behalf.    The  discharge 
authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be 
separated  with  an  uncharacterized  entry-level  separation.    The 
applicant was separated effective 17 February 2012 after serving 
one month and eight days on active duty.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOR  recommends denying the applicant’s request to change 
his  separation.    DPSOR  states  the  applicant’s  DD  Form  214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, is correct. 
He should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because he 
had  chronic  knee  pain  secondary  to  left  meniscal  and  left  ACL 
injuries.  Had the Air Force known of this condition at the time 
of  his  enlistment,  the  applicant  would  not  have  been  allowed 
entry  into  the  military.    Although  the  applicant  states  his 
injury was sustained during basic training, his medical condition 
does not meet assessment standards.   
 
The applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation  and  was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority.   
 
The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AETC/SGPS  recommends  denying  any  change  to  the  applicant 
reenlistment (RE) code.  SGPS states the applicant’s separation 
was  in  accordance  with  established  policy  and  procedures.  
Although his knee surgeries were noted, it appears the fact that 
they remained symptomatic was not.  The physical requirements of 
Basic Military Training (BMT) aggravated his knee to the degree 
he  could  no  longer  continue  training.    Had  the  condition  and 
symptoms been disclosed at the MEPS, it is highly probable that a 
waiver would have been denied to enter active duty.  Since the 
applicant  does  not  meet  current  medical  criteria  for  military 
duty, they do not support a change to his RE code.   
 
The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit D.   
 
AFRC/A1K recommends denying the applicant’s request for promotion 
to senior airman (E-4).  A1K states the applicant did not meet 
the minimum requirements for promotion eligibility at the time of 
his discharge.  If the Board changes the record to the extent of 
 

 

 

changing his discharge date to on or after 6 May 2012, it would 
then  be  reasonable  to  expect  the  applicant  would  have  met  the 
minimum promotion eligibility requirements to senior airman.   
 
The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit E.   
 
The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  giving  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  to 
the applicant, he recommends granting partial relief by changing 
the  record  to  reflect  the  applicant  was  found  physically  unfit 
for further military service due to tibial plateau fracture, and 
was  honorably  discharged  under  the  provisions  of  Air  Force 
Instruction 36-3212.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that had 
the  applicant  received  a  bone  scan  or  MRI  scan  prior  to  his 
discharge, it is likely the findings would have been positive for 
a tibial plateau fracture.  Therefore, utilizing the recommended 
Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  rating  code  for  tibial 
plateau  fracture,  5259,  and  noting  the  maximum  possible 
disability  rating,  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  opines  the 
applicant  would  have  been  found  unfit  and  discharged,  but  not 
retired, from the Air Force.  It should be noted the applicant 
had no evidence of knee joint instability or frequent episodes of 
locking  of  the  knee  joint.    Moreover,  noting  the  applicant 
required ongoing evaluations after his discharge; would have no 
bearing  upon  the  applicant’s  final  military  disposition,  but 
could  open  an  opportunity  for  his  eligibility  for  care  by  the 
DVA.   
 
The  complete  BCMR  Medical  Consultant’s  evaluation,  with 
attachments, is at Exhibit F.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
He had no intentions of being injured while on active duty and 
had full intentions of retiring from the Reserves when he retired 
from his civilian job.  When he was injured and placed on medical 
hold,  he  was  told  to  go  home  and  have  surgery  using  his  own 
personal insurance.  Three weeks later he was being discharged.  
If he had elected the military to perform his surgery, he would 
have added seven more months of service time based on when his 
civilian  surgeon  released  him  to  return  to  work  without  any 
restrictions.  If he had it to do all over again, he would have 
joined  earlier  and  elected  or  stay  under  military  pay  until 
September 2012 allowing for a medical board and no out of pocket 
expenses.    He  is  only  requesting  changes  to  his  DD  Form  214 
(date,  discharge  type,  and  a  service-connected  injury)  and  the 
reimbursement he was promised.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  rebuttal,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit E.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 

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 an injustice.  The BCMR 
Medical Consultant states that giving the benefit of the doubt to 
the applicant, it is likely that had he received a bone scan or 
MRI  scan  prior  to  his  discharge,  the  findings  would  have  been 
positive for a tibial plateau fracture, resulting in a physically 
unfit  finding.    In  view  of  this,  he  recommends  the  applicant’s 
records  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was  discharged.    We 
disagree, as we do not find substantial evidence to substantiate 
this assumption.  Moreover, given our mandate under 10 USC 1552, 
we  must  base  our  decision  on  whether  an  applicant  has  met  the 
burden of establishing the existence of an error or an injustice 
in  the  records,  rather  than  rendering  a  decision  based  on  the 
benefit of the doubt.  In this respect, we note that although the 
applicant did disclose, prior to entering the Air Force, that he 
had undergone knee surgeries, he did not disclose that he had a 
history of chronic knee pain secondary to left meniscal and left 
anterior cruciate ligament injuries, which, if known by the Air 
Force, would have precluded his entrance.  Furthermore, although 
this pre-existing condition may have been aggravated during BMT, 
the evidence of record taken as a whole, is not substantial for 
us  to  reach  the  conclusion  that  it  was  permanently  aggravated; 
thus,  necessitating  his  processing  through  the  Military 
Disability Evaluation System.  In view of our above finding the 
applicant  has  not  demonstrated  that  his  entry-level  separation 
was  improper  and  in  the  absence  of  substantial  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-2012-02471 in Executive Sessions on 5 March 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member 

 
 
 
 

The  following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02471: 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 May 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 Jul 12.  
Exhibit D.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 24 Jul 12. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 27 Aug 12. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 16 Jan 13,  
 
Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Feb 13. 
Exhibit H.  Electronic Mail, Applicant, dated 12 Feb 13. 

w/atchs. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

  

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Panel Chair