RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03678
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reinstated to active duty with full benefits and entitlements from the date of separation.

It appears the applicant is also requesting that her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4C be changed to allow eligibility to reenter the Air Force.  
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She did not have a medical condition that resulted in her separation from the Air Force.  Her condition was misdiagnosed and she was subsequently wrongfully separated from the service.

She is currently working with an Air Force recruiter at RAF Mildenhall, United Kingdom, to reenter the Air Force.  Her paperwork is in the system, pending approval.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement, copies of her DD Form 214, medical documents, separation notification letter and a statement from her cardiologist. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 22 Sep 99.  On 5 Jan 00, the applicant received notification that she was being recommended for discharge for erroneous enlistment.  She received an entry level separation on 11 Jan 00 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards).  She had completed a total of 3 months and 20 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of separation.  She received an RE Code of 4C, which defined means “Separated for concealment of juvenile records, minority, failure to meet physical standards for enlistment, failure to attain a 9.0 reading grade level as measured by the Air Force Reading Abilities Test (AFRAT), or void enlistments.”

Subsequent to the time her application was filed, on 18 Apr 02, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years.

The remaining 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 at Exhibits C, D, and E.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that, while the applicant was in technical training school, a heart murmur was noted as an incidental finding during a clinic visit for an unrelated reason.  She was referred to cardiology for an echocardiogram to evaluate the murmur.  The study was interpreted as demonstrating a disqualifying abnormality of the heart call a bicuspid aortic valve.  As a result, entry level separation was initiated and the applicant was discharged.  The applicant’s original medical records and echocardiogram report were not available for review.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that the fact there is a disparity between the echocardiogram in Dec 99 and the recent Aug 01 study is not without precedent.  There is no evidence that there was any impropriety in the applicant’s separation.  However, if her aortic valve is normal, it would be unjust to not allow her reenlistment.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant opines that, if the applicant’s aortic valve is verified as normal based on repeat evaluation, the applicant’s request should be approved.  Said evaluation should be conducted by a qualified DoD cardiologist and include repeat echocardiography.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS stated that, since the applicant was separated under a medical condition, they defer any decision to the BCMR Medical Consultant for the applicant’s reinstatement.  Based upon the documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was well documented.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that, as a result of the applicant’s enlistment in the grade of airman basic on 22 Sep 99, she would have met the minimum six months time-in-grade (TIG) requirement for promotion to airman (E-2) on 22 Mar 00, and the 10 months TIG requirement for promotion to airman first class (E-3) on 22 Jan 01.  In addition to meeting the minimum TIG requirement, the applicant must have also been recommended by her commander and not have been ineligible for any of the reasons outlined in AFI 36-2502.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 19 April 2002 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).

The applicant submitted a letter stating she would be returning to active duty on 18 Apr 02, with a school date of 30 May 02.  She further forwarded her new mailing address as an airman in the USAF, assigned to Offutt AFB, NE (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After reviewing the applicant’s submission and the evidence of record, we are persuaded that some relief is warranted.  In this respect, we noted the disparity between the echocardiogram in Dec 99 (abnormal heart function) and the 25 Aug 01 echocardiogram results, which reveals the applicant’s aortic valve as normal.  These differences of opinions by qualified authorities cast doubt as to the actual medical status of the applicant.  In view of these differences, we are in agreement with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant that the applicant should be afforded the opportunity to have another medical evaluation for a conclusive determination as to whether her aortic valve is verified as normal based on repeat evaluation.  As to the applicant’s RE code request, we find this to be a moot issue since she is currently on active duty.  In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the applicant’s records should be corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.  We defer final action at this time on the applicant’s request for retroactive reinstatement on active duty from the date of her original separation pending receipt of the results of this medical evaluation.  Upon receipt of this evaluation, we will again consider the applicant’s request for reinstatement with full benefits and entitlements.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force pertaining to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she undergo a repeat medical evaluation of her previously-diagnosed condition (bicuspid aortic valve) to include a repeat echocardiography at the nearest military medical facility with a qualified Department of Defense cardiologist.

It is further recommended that the results of the medical evaluation be forwarded to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records at the earliest practicable date so that all necessary and appropriate actions may be completed.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 01‑03678 in Executive Session on 5 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Dec 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,
               dated 15 Mar 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Apr 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Apr 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Apr 02.
   Exhibit G.  Letters from Applicant, dated 6 Feb 02 and
               8 Apr 02.

                                   

AFBCMR 01-03678

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she undergo a repeat medical evaluation of her previously-diagnosed condition (bicuspid aortic valve) to include a repeat echocardiography at the nearest military medical facility with a qualified Department of Defense cardiologist.

	It is further directed that the results of the medical evaluation be forwarded to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records at the earliest practicable date so that all necessary and appropriate actions may be completed.