RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03282
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN	HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her separation and reenlistment codes be changed to allow her to reenlist in the Air Force or Reserves.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After arriving at tech school, she began experiencing pain in her ankle.  She underwent numerous medical tests to diagnose the problem.  When all forms of treatment and testing were inconclusive, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test was ordered to determine the cause of her ankle pain.  During a follow-up visit nothing was mentioned about her MRI and the doctor still believed her ankle pain was due to a stress fracture that was not healing properly.  In the duration of her initial visit and her MRI, the doctor had given her at least two recommendations for reclassification into a different job field.  The doctor felt she was fully capable of military duty, but physically could not complete security forces training.  She was seen by another doctor at the same facility who also recommended reclassification.  All recommendations for reclassification were denied by the Student Superintendent at her squadron.  The only option she received was to separate.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 September 2001 for a period of four years as an airman basic.

On 22 February 2002, applicant was notified of her commander's intent to recommend her for discharge for erroneous enlistment.

The commander stated the following reason for the proposed discharge:  The  Chronological  Record  of  Medical Care, dated 11 February 2002, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with ankle pain.  It was determined this condition existed prior to service and had not been permanently aggravated by service.  Because of this condition, the applicant’s ability to function in the military environment was significantly impaired.

The commander advised the applicant of her right to consult legal counsel and that legal counsel had been obtained to assist her; and to submit statements in her own behalf, or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that if his recommendation was approved, the applicant's separation would be characterized as entry-level.  

On 25 February 2002, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived her right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted in which the staff judge advocate (SJA) recommended the applicant be discharged with an entry-level discharge.

The applicant was discharged on 5 March 2002, in the grade of airman basic with an uncharacterized entry level separation.  She served 1 month and 10 days of active duty service.  She received an RE code of “2C” which means "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without service characterization and a SPD of “JFC” which means "Erroneous Entry."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states the applicant while in basic training began experiencing right ankle and lower extremity pain which interfered with her training.  The applicant was able to complete basic military training (BMT).  She then entered training for Security Forces and was unable to meet the physical requirements to complete the training due to her ankle pain.  

A review of the applicant’s medical records indicates the right ankle pain began on the first day of basic military training and on 16 November 2001, the first day of training for Security Forces, the applicant was evaluated for ankle pain.  The applicant was initially diagnosed with tendonitis and was treated with a brace, Motrin, and restricted physical limited activity.  Due to the applicant’s persistent pain a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study was performed.  The MRI report showed the ankle was normal except for: “Nonspecific bone marrow edema, primarily in the posterior portion of the right talus.  The radiologist determined this most likely represented a mild contusion due to an old trauma.  The differential diagnosis would also include minimal transient osteoporosis.  There was no evidence of cartilage abnormality.”  The applicant, despite therapy and activity limitations, continued to complain of ankle pain.  The applicant’s podiatrist suggested she consider cross training to a less stressful career field.

The applicant, in addition to her ankle pain, presented to the clinic for complaints of chest tightness and shortness of breath when she walked and marched.  A family history of asthma in her father and sister was noted and the applicant was evaluated for possible asthma.  A histamine brochoprovocation test was performed and the results were negative.  The applicant was returned to duty.

The applicant, in her request for correction of her records, states after her discharge she underwent treatment from a civilian orthopedic surgeon who treated her with casting and arthroscopic surgery with an expectation of a “full recovery.”  However, the applicant has not provided any information regarding her recovery and functional status.  The Medical Consultant further states if the applicant’s postoperative outcome is excellent and her ankle shows normal function without pain, favorable consideration for enlistment is likely.  He recommends the applicant be invited to submit further evidence in the form of medical records.

The Medical Consultant has additional concern regarding the applicant’s history of possible reactive airway disease manifesting as symptoms of chest tightness and shortness of breath with exercise.  Although the applicant’s brochoprovocation test was negative, a strong family history of asthma was noted.  At the time of the applicant’s separation, this condition was not disqualifying for continued service.  However, medical standards for enlistment indicate that “asthma, including reactive airway disease, exercise induced bronchospasm or asthmatic bronchitis, reliably diagnosed at any age” is disqualifying for enlistment.  The medical standards are broader than defined diagnosis of asthma and include reactive airways that may not meet strict criteria for the diagnosis of asthma.

The Medical Consultant states the action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  He recommends not changing the RE code, however, the applicant is encouraged to submit copies of civilian medical records concerning her postoperative outcome and respiratory conditions for evaluation.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states based upon the documentation in the applicant's records, they believe her discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.

Air Force policy is that entry-level separations/uncharacterized service characterizations are given to service members who have not completed more than 180 days of continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a service member served less than 180 days of active service, that it would be unfair to the member to characterize that service. The applicant's uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance with DOD and AFIs.  The uncharacterized separation should not be viewed as negative and not be confused with other types of separations.

DPPRS recommends the denying the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant received a reenlistment eligibility code of "2C," indicating the member was involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge, or entry level separation without characterization, which is correct (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided, in support of her application, copies of medical waivers from a Maj N. recommending reclassification for the applicant, civilian MRI report, operative report and arthroscopic photographs of before and after surgery and a letter from her podiatrist stating the applicant has fully recovered from ankle condition and has no functional limitations.

The applicant’s complete response with attachments is attached at 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 an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant’s request, the available medical records, and the evidence presented in support of her appeal, we are persuaded that a change to her narrative reason and reenlistment eligibility code is warranted.  In coming to this conclusion, we noted that the applicant indicates that she may have sprained her ankle prior to entry on active duty, but that she successfully completed basic military training (BMT) and it was only after she commenced technical training that she began to experience pain in her ankle.  Therefore, we believe that any doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor.  In this respect, it is noted that according to her medical records, the applicant presented  to the  podiatry  clinic for  treatment on 16 November 2001 complaining of pain in her ankle for a week, saying that “the pain started after her first day of PT.”  We note that the applicant entered active duty on 26 September 2001, therefore, we are persuaded that if the applicant’s condition was EPTS, it would have manifested itself during the rigors of the six weeks of BMT.  In view of this, we believe this condition commenced during technical training, not BMT.  Additionally, it is noted that the only treatment the applicant received during this time period was medication, an ankle brace, and a profile restricting her physical activity.  Further, the treating podiatrist not only indicated that the applicant’s condition did not warrant a medical separation but that she should be cross-trained to a less stressful career field because of a protracted recuperative course.  However, we find no documentation that any further treatment was ordered or that she was ever considered for cross-training.  Rather, the applicant was discharged for an erroneous enlistment on the basis that her medical condition existed prior to service (EPTS) and was not aggravated by the service.  Further, while we cannot determine whether her condition would have resolved had she been allowed to remain on active duty and received further treatment, we note that with post-service treatment, the applicant has full function of her ankle.  In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded that the applicant should not be labeled with an erroneous enlistment.  Therefore, we recommend that the narrative reason for her separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority” with the corresponding separation code and her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to “3K” thereby affording her the opportunity to apply for a waiver to reenlist in the armed services.  Whether or not she is successful will depend on the needs of the service and whether she is otherwise qualified.  This recommendation in no way guarantees that she will be allowed to return to the Air Force or any branch of service.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 5 March 2002, she was separated with an uncharacterized entry-level separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2, (Secretarial Authority), with Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “JFF” and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03282  in  Executive  Session on 13 May 2003 and 30 May 2003, 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 8 Oct 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
			2 Jan 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Feb 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Mar 03.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
	Exhibit G.	Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 17 Apr 03,
			w/atchs.

				

AFBCMR BC-2002-03282
INDEX CODE:  110.00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction for 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, SSN, be corrected to show that on 5 March 2002, she was separated with an uncharacterized entry-level separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2, (Secretarial Authority), with Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “JFF” and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K.”