RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02078
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His involuntary discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been granted a medical discharge for chondromalacia of patella for both knees.  This condition negatively hampered his Air Force career by not allowing him to maintain a high level of physical readiness.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, letters from the S.W. Military Drive Minor Emergency Center, dated 7 January 2002 and 28 March 2002, AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, dated 12 February 1975, and other documentation.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 23 October 1970, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic.

A 12 February 1975 Orthopedic Consultation indicates a diagnosis of chondromalacia patella.  The physician prescribed isometric quadriceps exercises and limited aerobic exercises.

A 24 March 1978 medical entry indicates that “No apparent CM at this time except by history.”  It appears that the physician recommended quadriceps-strengthening exercises.

On 13 July 1981, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for Exceeding Air Force Weight Standards.  Specific reasons follows:

	On 10 January 1979, he entered into the weight control program (WCP).  His maximum weight by Air Force standards was 189 pounds.  He weighed 212 pounds on 2 January 1979.  He was advised that an average weight loss of six pounds per observation period (every 60 days) is regarded as satisfactory progress.  He was counseled on the provisions of AFR 35-11, monthly checks and administrative actions for failure to progress or comply with the weight program.

	On 10 May 1979, he was counseled concerning his unsatisfactory progress during his scheduled weigh-in of 2 May 1979.  He weighed 223 pounds.

	On 13 August 1979, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for unsatisfactory progress for two 60-day observation periods.  He weighed 218 pounds on 24 July 1979, for a gain of six pounds since his initial entry into the program.

	On 6 September 1979, he received an LOR for continued unsatisfactory progress in the WCP.  During his weigh-in on 4 September 1979 he weighed 217 pounds.

	On 2 November 1979, he weighed 209 pounds for a loss of eight pounds during the 60 day observation period.  No action was taken.

	On 25 January 1980, he received an LOR for unsatisfactory progress.  He weighed 210 pounds on 15 January 1980.

	On 14 March 1980, he weighed 204 pounds and on 18 May 1980, he weighed 192 pounds.  No action was taken.

	On 25 September 1980, he received an LOR for failure to satisfactorily progress on the WCP.  He weighed 217 pounds during his weigh-in on 23 September 1980.

	On 22 October 1980, he weighed 225 pounds during his in-processing weight check.  He was referred to the USAF Hospital for medical evaluation and it was determined that his maximum weight should be 200 pounds.

	On 2 December 1980, he was given a letter outlining actions that would be taken if he did not comply with the provisions of AFR 35-11.

	On 24 December 1980, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for unsatisfactory progress, as he had gained five pounds since his arrival at this unit.  His weight was 230.  He was also ordered to weigh-in every Friday beginning 9 January 1981 until he was removed from the program.

	On 24 February 1981, he was placed on the control roster for a period of 120 days for continued unsatisfactory progress on the WCP.

	On 28 April 1981, he received an LOR for unsatisfactory progress.  He had gained two pounds during the 60-day observation period.  He weighed 232.

	On 25 June 1981, he weighed 232 pounds.  This was unacceptable and was not   tolerated.  His failure to comply with Air Force directives created doubt as to his desire and suitability to continue in the United States Air Force.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that probation and rehabilitation was not recommended.  The applicant had been given ample time to conform to the Air Force weight standards.  His failure to meet the established standards had created doubt as to his desire and suitability for continued service with the United States Air Force.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to present his case before an administrative discharge board, consult legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to appear before an administrative discharge board and to submit statements in his own behalf.

The applicant’s Report of Medical History, prepared in conjunction with his pending separation, dated 15 July 1981 indicates he was in good health.

On 20 July 1981, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge.

A resume of the applicant's performance reports since 1990 follows:

		PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			 8 Feb 78			8
			31 May 78			LOE
			28 Sep 78			9
			24 May 79			9
			31 Mar 80			9
			 5 Sep 80			9
			17 Jun 81			9

Applicant was honorably discharged on 20 July 1981, in the grade of staff sergeant, under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Exceeding Air Force Weight Standards).  He served a total of 10 years, 8 months and 28 days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial.  The Consultant indicated that the applicant, with a lifelong history of weight problems, had recurring problems exceeding Air Force weight standards beginning in 1973.  He was diagnosed with chondromalacia patellae (now termed retropatellar pain syndrome or patellofemoral pain syndrome) in 1975.  This is a common condition that usually responds well to strengthening of the quadriceps muscles and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications.  Despite his knee condition, he was able to lose weight to meet Air Force Weight Standards in 1978.  In January and February 1979 he complained of knee pain with running but between May 1979 and May 1980 he lost 30 pounds.  Despite this success, he rapidly regained his weight, then did not lose it again and was administratively discharged from the Air Force in July 1981.  There is no documentation in the service medical records that his failure to meet weight standards in 1981 was due to retropatellar pain syndrome preventing exercise.  Medical record entries for this final period of time have no report of complaints of knee pain limiting his ability to exercise.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant received a physical examination on 16 July 1981 in conjunction with his involuntary discharge action for failing to meet Air Force Weight Control Program (WCP) standards.  The examination resulted in his being found fit for separation with no unfitting physical profiles at that time.  His performance reports verifies that he was reasonably capable of performing his military duties as a personnel technician up until his discharge.  His medical records reflect that he was treated for various medical conditions throughout his career.  The fact he may have been treated for a medical condition does not automatically mean the condition is unfitting for military service.  DODI 1332.38 and military disability laws and policy rate overweight and obesity as an unsuiting rather than unfitting condition and are not ratable in the absence of an underlying ratable causative disorder.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) denied his claim for chondromalacia patella during their evaluation in September 2000.  The applicant has not submitted any documentation to substantiate his claim that his medical condition for his knees was unfitting at the time of his involuntary discharge for failing to meet the Air Force WCP standards.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 28 February 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  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 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 probable error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice.  The Board believes that the discharge apparently complied with the governing regulation in effect at that time; responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and the Board does not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  In this respect, the applicant has not established that his knee condition was so severe that it impacted his duty performance.  Further, we find no evidence in his records that his knee condition prevented him from meeting standards for Air Force weight management.  In view of the above finding, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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-2002-02078 in Executive Session on 3 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 June 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 
			dated 13 January 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 19 February 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 February 2003.

				Panel Chair