RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01634
		INDEX CODE:  110.02, 100.03
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation be changed to a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been medically discharged and did not lie to the Air Force prior to enlisting in the Air Force.  He injured his left knee while in basic training and subsequently needs to have surgery to repair the damage he sustained to the knee while on active duty.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, four letters of support and copies of clinical notes from a civilian doctor.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 19 November 2001 for a term of 4 years.  On 8 April 2002, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for fraudulent enlistment.  The basis for the action was the commander received documentation from the medical center that he concealed a prior service medical condition, which if revealed, could have resulted in rejection of his enlistment.  On 8 April 2002, he was advised of his rights in this matter, acknowledged receipt of the notification on the same day, waived his right to consult counsel, and declined to submit statements on his own behalf.  He also acknowledged that if discharged for the reason(s) cited, he would not be entitled to any disability, retirement or severance pay.  The package was reviewed by the assistant staff judge advocate and found to be legally sufficient.  On 11 April 2002, he was administratively discharged with an entry-level separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, (Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service), and issued an RE code of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service”.  He served four (4) months and one (1) day on active duty. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant’s request and opined that the narrative reason for discharge may be changed to erroneous enlistment.  However, no change in the reenlistment code is warranted.

The applicant experienced considerable difficulties beginning during the first week of basic training including adjustment disorder, chest pain, and knee pain.  During evaluations for his chest pain and knee pain, the applicant reported a pre-service history of chest pain and knee pain.  No heart or lung problems were diagnosed after thorough evaluations.  The applicant first reported no history of in-service knee injury, then reported an injury, and then later reported there was no injury.  Service medical records indicate he reported a pop in the right knee.  In his request he reported it was the left knee that popped.  Evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon diagnosed patellofemoral pain syndrome, confirming the diagnosis made by the primary care provider and the physical therapist.  There was no evidence of clinically significant injury to the knee while on active duty.  Retropatellar pain syndrome is a common painful condition often aggravated by activities such as running, especially in individuals who have not been conditioned.  In the absence of predisposing conditions such as weak muscles, abnormal tracking of the kneecap, or degenerative changes in the cartilage, rest and physical therapy typically improves the pain.

Airmen are in entry-level status during the first 180 days of continuous active military service and if administratively separated during this period receive an entry-level separation.  This discharge does not attempt to characterize the type of service as either good or bad.  An honorable characterization may be given by the Secretary of the Air Force when it is clearly warranted by unusual circumstances of personal conduct and performance of military duty.  Fraudulent entry is one involving deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment that if known at the time of enlistment or entry into a period of military service, might have resulted in rejection.  The fraud may occur at any time in the enlistment process.  Erroneous enlistment is one that would not have occurred had the relevant facts been known by the Air Force and it was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the member.

The preponderance of the evidence is consistent with retropatellar pain syndrome that existed prior to service but was minimally symptomatic until the rigors of military training increased the symptoms.  Based on the natural history of the condition and the evidence submitted by the applicant, it does not appear that the applicant deliberately deceived MEPS medical personnel in order to gain entrance into the military.  The applicant’s reason for discharge may be more accurately characterized as erroneous entry.

Medical documentation supports a conclusion that the applicant is not suited for military service and change of the reenlistment code is not warranted.

The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.  The DoD determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service.  He provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 Dec 03, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 in regard to his request that his narrative for separation be changed to a medical discharge.  After a thorough review of the documentation provided in support of his appeal and the evidence of record, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the discharge given to the applicant was proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives.  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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  Notwithstanding the aforementioned, we note that the BCMR Medical Consultant has indicated that the narrative reason for separation, Fraudulent Entry, should be changed.  The preponderance of the evidence proves that the applicant’s condition existed prior to service but was minimally symptomatic until the rigors of military training increased the symptoms.  We agree with the BCMR Medical Consultant in this matter and believe that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation is best characterized as Erroneous Enlistment.  Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 11 April 2002, he was separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2 (Erroneous Entry), with a separation code of “JFC”.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-01634 in Executive Session on 2 Mar 2004, 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 3 Jun 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 14 Nov 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Dec 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/BCMR, dated 16 Jan 04

	Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-01634	

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, be corrected to show that on 11 April 2002, he was separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2 (Erroneous Entry), with a separation code of “JFC”.

                                                                              Director
                                                                              Air Force Review Boards Agency