RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03113

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His uncharacterized character of service be changed to 
honorable.   


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged due to a medical injury/surgery while in Basic 
Military Training (BMT).  He was in good standing and had no 
disciplinary actions prior to his separation.  

He is concerned future employment opportunities could be 
hindered by employers not knowing what an uncharacterized 
discharge is.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 November 2013, the applicant entered the Regular Air 
Force.

On 8 May 2014, the applicant was notified by his commander of 
his intent to recommend he be discharged In Accordance With 
(IAW) AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for 
erroneous enlistment.  The specific reason for the action was a 
medical Narrative Summary (NARSUM) dated 29 April 2014 that 
found the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to 
enlist.  He should not have been allowed to join the Air Force 
because of knee pain.

On 8 May 2014, the applicant acknowledged the discharge 
notification and waived his right to consult counsel and submit 
statements in his own behalf.

On 12 May 2014, the discharge authority approved the 
recommendation that the applicant be discharged.  

On 13 May 2014, the applicant was discharged with an Entry Level 
Separation (ELS)/uncharacterized character of service and a 
narrative reason for separation of “Discharge failed 
medical/physical procurement standards.”


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends denial.  Based on the documentation on 
file, the discharge to include the type of separation, 
Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for 
separation and character of service was appropriately 
administered and within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  

The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or 
injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Review 
of the records provided and medical notes from Wilford Hall 
Medical Center (WHMC) from 29 April 2014 states he presented to 
the Reid clinic with knee pain and this condition existed prior 
to service.  He stated he understood the diagnoses and treatment 
plan.  Subsequently, he was processed for an ELS.  

A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  The discharge was consistent with 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  DPSOR did not find any evidence of any errors or 
injustices in the discharge process.

The medical authorities examined the applicant and found he had 
a disqualifying condition that did not meet Air Force standards 
and was not permanently aggravated by training beyond the normal 
progression of the ailment.  It was recommended he be 
administratively separated due to the fact that his knee pain 
would interfere with the satisfactory completion of training or 
military duty.  Based on the recommendation, the commander and 
the discharge authority concluded that discharge was in order.  
DPSOR concurs that this was the correct decision.  Therefore, 
the SPD code and narrative reason for separation as reflected on 
his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, is correct.

The applicant’s service characterization is also correct as 
reflected on his DD Form 214.  Airmen are given 
ELS/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is 
initiated within the first 180 days of continuous active 
service.  The Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a member 
served less than 180 days of continuous active service, it would 
be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their 
limited service.  Therefore, the uncharacterized character of 
service on his DD Form 214 is correct and IAW with DOD and AF 
instructions.

A complete copy of the DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical 
Consultant is sensitive to the fact that such a designation of 
the applicant’s character of service does not afford him the 
opportunity to receive certain benefits through the Department 
of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and could prejudice a potential 
employer.  However, changing the character of service to 
honorable would be an indication that his knee pain represented 
a de novo permanent impairment or permanent aggravation of a 
pre-existing injury.  Medical officials determined that his knee 
pain was the manifestation of the expected natural expression of 
a pre-existing condition.  Thus, absent clinical or radiographic 
evidence of permanent damage to cartilage of the knee or its 
supporting ligaments, the Medical Consultant agrees with the 
disposition recommended by the applicant’s military providers.  
The Medical Consultant is compelled to avoid speculation or 
conjecture in making a determination in his favor and he opines 
the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or 
injustice that warrants the desired change of the record.

In the case under review, the applicant apparently developed 
stress fractures and was allowed to return to training after 
healing.  While the applicant was at greater risk for a 
recurrence of the stress fractures, he developed knee pain 
instead.  Nevertheless, in the training environment rules are 
established to preclude warehousing individuals while awaiting a 
healing process to take place for a given injury.  The applicant 
had already been granted the rare opportunity to leave training 
and go on convalescent leave to allow healing of his stress 
fractures.  However, upon, his return to training a completely 
different medical complaint arose (knee pain), which medical 
officials opined would further interfere with training for an 
indeterminate period of time.  Consequently he was discharged 
IAW AFI 36-3208.  

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit E.  


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 18 June 2015 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.

 
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.  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 adopt the rationale expressed as the basis 
for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
requested relief.


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-2014-03113 in Executive Session on 8 July 2015 under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	  Panel Chair
	  Member
	  Member
 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-03113 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 July 2014, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 15 May 2015.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 20 May 2015.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
  3 June 2015.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 June 2015.