RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05601
	 		COUNSEL: NONE
			HEARING DESIRED: NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her entry level separation be changed to a medical discharge with benefits.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her separation was unjust.  She should have been medically discharged because of her knee injury which is a direct result 
of her military service. However, she was separated for fraudulent entry before she was medically cleared from her knee injury.

Her dependent medical records reflect that she had an allergy to "pecan" nuts.  She was never tested for allergies; however, her 
mother has the “pecan” nuts allergy and requested an EpiPen for her in the event she was also susceptible to an allergy to “pecan” nuts.

During Basic Military Training (BMT) she was placed on medical hold because of a knee injury.  However, once her allergy was 
discovered all medical treatment relating to her knee stopped and she was allergy tested.  Her allergy test showed that she 
was not allergic to "pecans."  However, the allergy test indicated she was allergic to peanuts even though she had eaten peanuts her entire life without 
incident.

In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of her DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty; medical records and various other documents related to her request.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 15 April 2011, the applicant, then a military dependent, was 
seen at a medical facility.  Her mother disclosed that the applicant had numerous environmental allergies, that as a child 
she was allergic to nuts and that her throat swelled up after eating pecans a few years ago.

On 2 July 2012, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force.

According to SF 600, on 1 August 2012, the applicant was placed on medical hold for knee pain.

According to SF 600, on 8 August 2012, the applicant was tested for allergies.  The Allergy/Immunology specialist noted the 
applicant developed symptoms approximately 10 minutes into testing, which was resolved 3 minutes after taking Zyrtec.  The 
allergist acknowledged the applicant's reported tolerance to peanuts [which he points out is a legume and not a tree nut] and 
almonds, but advised her to avoid all nuts due to possibility of cross-contamination during food processing.  She was also 
advised to carry an EpiPen at all times for possible inadvertent exposure to tree nuts.  The provider issued the concluding 
diagnoses (1) Tree Nut Allergy (2) Penicillin Anaphylaxis.

On 15 August 2012, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force under 
the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, for fraudulent entry.  The reason for this action was she intentionally concealed a prior service medical condition, 
which if revealed, could have resulted in rejection of her enlistment.  The commander further noted that the Air Force 
discovered that the applicant had a history of tree nut allergy and anaphylaxis that was not documented on her DD Form 2807-1, 
Report of Medical History.

On 15 August 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and waived her right to consult with 
legal counsel or to submit statements in her behalf.  On her Area Defense Counsel (ADC) Consultation Questionnaire, the 
applicant stated “I have a nut allergy and I know it will be pointless to fight my case and I have to accept being separated.”

On 17 August 2012, she received an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service.  The narrative reason for separation 
reflected on her DD Form 214 is “Discharge Fraudulent Entry into Military Service Medical.”  She served on active duty for 1 month and 15 days.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR 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 and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. Airman are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when 
separation is initiated in the first 180 days 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, her uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

On 13 August 2012, the applicant signed a statement indicating that she did not know that she was allergic to tree nuts even 
though her mother told her to stay away from them.  She claimed she was never tested for a nut allergy until she came to BMT. 
However, the medical staff found documentation in her dependent medical record that showed her being seen at the age of l6 for 
tightness in the chest and her mother reporting that she had numerous allergies to include nuts.  This documentation shows a 
pre-existing condition and that the applicant was of the age to be aware of this condition prior to entering the military.  
Therefore, DPSOR concurs that fraudulent enlistment was the correct basis for discharge

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AETC/SGPS recommends denial.  The applicant had a history of tree nut allergy and anaphylaxis prior to entering the military 
which was not disclosed during her Military Entrance Processing Station examination.  This condition and the reaction are 
permanently disqualifying for military service. In July 2012 while in BMT she complained of right knee pain.  She was 
provided crutches and on 15 August 2012 was doing well without them.  A bone scan and x-ray showed no evidence of stress fracture or shin splints.

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  Despite the fact that the applicant now contends she may require knee surgery in 
the future, her knee ailment was not the cause of terminating her military service.  The negative bone scan and X-rays of her 
knee and the absence of ligament instability on 15 August 2012 did not point towards existence of a condition requiring 
processing through a Medical Evaluation Board or referral to an orthopedic surgeon.  The fact remains the applicant did not 
disclose certain medical information regarding her prior troubles [throat swelling] with any food substance; which would 
likely have disqualified her for service entry, in accordance with DoDI 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, 
Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services, and which could have posed a serious mission or life threat had she 
experienced such a reaction in an operational environment without ready access to appropriate care.

Nevertheless, since the applicant was presumed fit to enter military service [at least from a musculoskeletal perspective] 
and she was presumably asymptomatic at the time of her entry to military service, the Medical Consultant concedes any knee 
complaints occurring during military service [in this case subjective pain] could be a manifestation of a permanent 
service-incurred injury; particularly if it remains persistent or uninterrupted for months to years after cessation of the 
precipitating activity.  No objective evidence is supplied to reflect this was the case at the “snap shot” time of the 
applicant's release from military service.

The Medical Consultant also understands that the applicant may seek benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA); 
which may require a service connected medical basis for discharge after such a short period of service.  She is advised 
that, operating under Title 38, United States Code, the DVA is authorized to independently offer compensation for any medical 
condition it determines service-incurred or aggravated without regard to its impact upon a service member's retainability, 
fitness to serve, the narrative reason for release from service, or the intervening period of time since release from service.

Finally, the Board may consider changing the applicant's discharge to Secretarial Authority or Failed Medical Procurement 
Standards, based upon a possible injustice, if the Board considers plausible that she was not aware of her allergy to 
certain nuts or that she only avoided them since her mother had the allergy.  Doing so may remove a possible a lifelong obstacle 
to her employability, as reflected on her DD Form 214, where trust is essential.

The complete BCMR Medical evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 July 2014, copies of the Air Force and BCMR medical evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and 
comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibits F).


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 to warrant 
changing the applicant’s entry level separation to a medical discharge.  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 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 favorably consider this portion of the applicant’s request.

4.  Notwithstanding the above sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or 
injustice warranting a degree of relief.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete 
submission, we are of the opinion there was no deliberate deception on the part of the applicant upon her entry into the 
Air Force.  For this reason and to prevent a further burden with the stigma associated with the narrative reason currently 
reflected on her DD Form 214, we recommend it be changed to “Secretarial Authority.”  Accordingly, in the interest of 
justice we recommend her record be corrected as 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 at the 
time of her 17 August 2012 discharge, the narrative reason for her separation was Secretarial Authority with a separation code of “JFF.”


The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 12 November 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

       , Panel Chair
       , Member
       , Member

All members voted to correct the record as recommended.  Due to the unavailability of XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX will sign as Acting 
Panel Chair.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2013-05601 was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 December 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR Advisory, dated 17 January 2014.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AETC/SGPS Advisory, dated 27 January 2014.
Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 11 June 2014.
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 July 2014.