RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01490
		INDEX CODE:  100.00

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to an RE code of 1C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her doctor advised her that she would be able to reenlist within six months if her medical condition changed, but with an RE code of 2C, she cannot.

In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a copy of an extract from her medical records (Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 7 Oct 03), and a copy of a diagnosis from her current physician.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 Jul 03 for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 23 Oct 03, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for erroneous enlistment.  The reason for the proposed action was that a Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 7 Oct 03, indicated she had been diagnosed with Patello-Femoral Syndrome and it was determined the condition existed prior to service and was not permanently aggravated by service.  Because of this condition, her ability to function in a military environment was significantly impaired.  The commander recommended that the applicant be given an entry-level separation.  On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.  She waived her right to consult counsel and to submit statements in her own behalf.  On 23 Oct 03, the Chief, Adverse Actions found the case file legally sufficient to support separation and recommended she be separated with an entry-level separation.  The discharge authority approved the entry-level separation with service uncharacterized.

The applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation on 30 Oct 03, by reason of “Erroneous Entry (Other),” and was issued an RE code of 2C.  She was credited with 3 months and 16 days of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and recommended denial.  The applicant completed basic military training at the end of Aug 03 and began training as a security forces helper on 5 Sep 03.  On 19 Sep 03, she presented to the trainee clinic reporting anteromedial knee pain of seven weeks duration made worse by any type of running.  During the medical evaluation it was determined that past medical history included “occasional right knee pain prior to enlistment for two - three years.”  She was diagnosed with patellofemoral pain syndrome, placed on limited duty (no physical conditioning or running) for 10 days and prescribed Motrin.  After some follow-up and re-evaluation, the physician recorded the diagnosis as patellofemoral syndrome, and also wrote, “patient desires to go home,” and recommended an entry level separation.

The fact applicant is doing well at this time does not predict that she will not again experience duty limiting knee pain when exposed to the rigors of military training.  Past experience with patellofemoral pain syndrome refractory to rest and medication is predictive of recurrence under similar circumstances.  The Air Force cannot guarantee a sedentary occupation, and even members in sedentary occupations are required to maintain physical fitness including running and are often required to deploy and perform vigorous activities in operational settings.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Jan 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.  At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances of their separation.  Applicant’s RE code of 2C accurately reflects that she was involuntarily separated with an entry level separation without characterization of service.  The applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical Consultant and there is nothing in the evidence provided by the applicant that would overcome his assessment of the case.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE code issued was in accordance with the governing directives.  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-2004-01490 in Executive Session on 10 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 May 04, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 05.