RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00308
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for his separation and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had no pre-existing injury, he only had a checkup before he entered the Air Force.  He came back with no problems.

Before he signed up he told his recruiter that his knee hurt so the recruiter told him it would be good to have it checked before he sign any papers.  He had his knee scanned, the doctor told him there was nothing wrong with the MRI.  The doctor said it was twisted.  He went back to the office and talked to the recruiter and signed the papers.  When he was in tech school he fell and went to the doctor.  He tried to explain to the doctor about his previous MRI, however, she didn’t understand and took it that he had a pre-existing injury and told him he had lied to MEPS.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, a copy of his MRI report and a copy of his Training Temporary Duty Restriction Form.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 June 2002 in the grade of airman basic for a period of six years.  He completed basic military training and began training as a security forces helper.  Approximately two weeks into technical training, he presented to the emergency room with an 18-week history of increasing right knee pain interfering with continued training.  He told the orthopedic surgeon he had been previously seen by a civilian orthopedist for right knee pain related to sports activity.

Applicant failed to admit to being diagnosed with Retro patellar Pain Syndrome at his MEPS.  In August 2002, while in technical training for Security Forces, he voluntarily admitted to a previous diagnosis precluding him from fulfilling his Air Force obligation.

On 16 September 2002, the commander notified applicant that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent enlistment.  The basis for this action was AFPD 36-12 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.15.  His reason for this action was the Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 27 August 2002, indicating that the applicant was diagnosed with Retro patellar Pain Syndrome.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of notification.  Military legal counsel was made available to him.  He waived his option to consult counsel and his right to submit statements.  On 17 September 2002, the Discharge Authority approved the separation and directed an entry-level separation.

The applicant was administratively discharged with an entry-level separation on 30 September 2002 for Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service.  He served 3 months and 13 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 June 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting a change of his RE code.  We note that the applicant received an entry level separation with uncharacterized service characterization and issued a RE code of “2C”.  After reviewing the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, we find his separation was in accordance with the applicable instruction and since he received an entry level separation, his RE code appears to be correct.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on his request for a change in his RE code.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice in regards to applicant’s request for a change in the reason for his separation.  It appears that the applicant informed his recruiter that he had a knee problem and was told that before he enlisted he should have it checked by a doctor.  Applicant underwent magnetic resonance imaging of his knee with findings showing no evidence of internal damage or cartilage injury.  He was seen by his orthopedist on 22 January 2002 and he was diagnosed with retro patellar pain syndrome.  During his enlistment prescreening, applicant denied any history of knee or joint problems.  We agree with the Air Force that the applicant should have informed the appropriate officials of his knee problems during his medical prescreening.  However, in view of the actions taken by the applicant prior to his enlistment, we do not believe his failure to reveal his knee was fraudulent.  To the contrary, the applicant informed the Air Force that he had a knee problem prior to his enlistment, he sought help from civilian doctors and based on these reports, he believe that his knee was normal.  As stated above, we find the separation action taken against the applicant was appropriated; however, the reason for his separation appears harsh based on the evidence of record.  Therefore, we believe the reason for his separation should be changed to “Secretarial Authority”, with a separation code of “KFF.”  In view of the above findings, we recommend 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 30 September 2002, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Secretarial Authority, and issued a Separation Program Designator code of “KFF.”
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 29 July 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, dtd 14 Jan 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 14 Jun 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 18 Jun 04.

                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-00308

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 30 September 2002, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Secretarial Authority, and issued a Separation Program Designator code of “KFF.”

                                                                            Director
                                                                            Air Force Review Boards Agency