RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04495 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed from “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement” to “Medical discharge.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged for a medical condition which is reflected in his records. The applicant provides no documents in support of his request. His complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 10 Nov 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 5 Dec 2003, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for entry-level separation (Defective Enlistment). The commander cited medical narrative summary dated 1 Dec 2003 that found the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist. On 5 Dec 2003, the applicant acknowledged the Discharge Notification and waived his rights to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. On 8 Dec 2003, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge action legally sufficient. On 11 Dec 2003, the applicant received an entry level discharge with an uncharacterized character of service after serving one month and two days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of changing the applicant’s narrative reason for separation. DPSOS states the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because of his medical condition (pes planus). Had the Air Force known of this condition at the time of his enlistment, he would not have been allowed entry into the military. The documentation on file in the master personnel records supports the basis for discharge and his entry level service characterization. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and 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 Department of Defense (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. Therefore, his narrative reason for separation is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states it appears that the applicant had bilateral moderate pes planus, or flat feet, discovered at the Military Entrance Processing Station five months before entering military service, which had been asymptomatic until he experienced the levels of physical activity encountered in basic training. Symptoms developed within 30 days of entry into active service. Additionally, once at Basic Military Training, he was also diagnosed with hallux valgus (bunions). Both of these conditions, when symptomatic, are disqualifying for continued service, in accordance with AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards. Whenever a condition is found disqualifying for continued service, or even for entry into military service many people seek to have that condition waived so that their military service can continue. Medical records show that the applicant declined the opportunity to seek a waiver for this condition. Although the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) does rate illnesses and injuries if there is a service connection, the Air Force is prohibited by law from offering compensation for a medical condition that existed prior to service. The Medical Consultant concludes that the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. There is also no suggestion that any error or injustice occurred during this process. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 24 Jul 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 Docket Number BC- 2011-04495 in Executive Session on 15 Nov 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2011-04495: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 1 Nov 2011. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 7 Feb 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Jul 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jul 2012.