RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00251
		INDEX CODE:  100.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code and separation (SPD) code be changed to one that would allow enlistment into the California Air National Guard (CA ANG).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He hurt his leg during his first year of service and during the next 3 years of rehabilitation he was bounced around from commander to commander thereby hindering any opportunity to complete his initial training.  He contends that he never had a chance to complete his training, that he is not an unintelligent person and that since his honorable discharge, he has completed associate degrees in general education and computer graphics and has completed requirements for a bachelor’s degree in computer information systems.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has submitted a personal statement.

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 August 1989.  He attained the grade of Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) with a date of rank (DOR) of 28 February 1991.  In 1991, he was recommended for discharge by his commander for twice failing his Career Development Course (CDC) upgrade training courses.  However, he was allowed Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R) that he subsequently successfully completed.  He did not however, reach his 5-skill level.  After three years as a trainee, applicant’s commander gave him another opportunity to attain his 5-skill level by administering two qualifying tests.  The applicant failed both attempts and consequently received a letter of reprimand (LOR) on 14 September 1992.  He was recommended for discharge again on 5 November 1992 but the discharge was deferred pending results of a medical evaluation board (MEB).  Concurrent to the administrative discharge action specified above an MEB was being conducted on the applicant as he had developed pain in his knees in 1990 that had led to numerous physical profiles that interfered with the performance of his duties.  He was recommended for cross training which his Command denied and ordered that he be returned to his specialty.  On 7 May 1993, applicant was found medically unfit and was recommended for separation with 20% severance pay.  On 30 June 1993, the Air Force Personnel Council recommended that the applicant, under dual action, be discharged for unsatisfactory performance rather than by reason of disability.  He was discharged on 14 July 1993, for Unsatisfactory Performance without P&R, with characterization of service as honorable.  He was discharged as an A1C after serving 3 years, 10 months and, 15 days.

Applicant applied to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) for a change of reason for discharge.  The DRB met on 14 August 1997 and denied the request.  The Board found that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiated an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this case file and recommended denial.  The Medical Consultant states that the applicant, while being processed for administrative discharge, was also being evaluated by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) that constituted a dual action.  The MEB had been initiated to examine the applicant’s continued fitness for duty.  The applicant was seen by an orthopedic surgeon who found that the applicant suffered from a 3-year history of bilateral knee pain due to Retro-Patellar Pain Syndrome (RPPS) and iliotibial band syndrome (a tendonitis).  The applicant noted that prolonged standing aggravated his symptoms.  His job often required him to stand 12 hours at a time with onset of symptoms appearing after only 10 to 40 minutes.  The Medical Consultant notes that the applicant, after 14 months of physical therapy and medication, reported some relief only when wearing knee braces.  Further examination of the applicant yielded that he suffered also from a predisposing anatomic abnormality of laterally displaced kneecaps, fluid in his knees and a popliteal cyst (Baker’s cyst) in his left knee as well as plica in both knees (fibrous bands in the knee forming during development that can be a cause of pain.)  The MEB recommended separation with severance pay but because applicant’s disposition was considered dual action, the Air Force Personnel Council recommended he be discharged under the administrative discharge action that was on hold pending results of the MEB.  The Medical Consultant states that even though the CA ANG has expressed an interest in the applicant, it should be noted that even if the applicant had been medically discharged instead of administratively, his RE code and SPD code would have reflected medical disqualification.  The applicant would still not be eligible for enlistment into the military.  The Medical Consultant notes further that the applicant is receiving disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs at the rate of 10% compensable disability for each knee.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this case and recommended denial.  DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretionary powers of the discharge authority.  They note the DRB’s denial of the application and that the request is not timely.  No new evidence or any identification of error or injustice has been presented to warrant a change to the discharge.

DPPRS’s complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE has reviewed this case and verified that the RE code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service” is correct.

DPPAE’s evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 June 2003 for review and comment within 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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, including his academic achievements, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions regarding the relationship between his rehabilitation and his failure to complete required upgrade training, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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-2003-00251 in Executive Session on 17 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jan 03, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 9 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 2 Jun 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair