RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03113 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized character of service be changed to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged due to a medical injury/surgery while in Basic Military Training (BMT). He was in good standing and had no disciplinary actions prior to his separation. He is concerned future employment opportunities could be hindered by employers not knowing what an uncharacterized discharge is. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 25 November 2013, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 8 May 2014, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend he be discharged In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for erroneous enlistment. The specific reason for the action was a medical Narrative Summary (NARSUM) dated 29 April 2014 that found the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist. He should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because of knee pain. On 8 May 2014, the applicant acknowledged the discharge notification and waived his right to consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. On 12 May 2014, the discharge authority approved the recommendation that the applicant be discharged. On 13 May 2014, the applicant was discharged with an Entry Level Separation (ELS)/uncharacterized character of service and a narrative reason for separation of “Discharge failed medical/physical procurement standards.” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial. Based on the documentation on file, the discharge to include the type of separation, Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation and character of service was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge. Review of the records provided and medical notes from Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) from 29 April 2014 states he presented to the Reid clinic with knee pain and this condition existed prior to service. He stated he understood the diagnoses and treatment plan. Subsequently, he was processed for an ELS. A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOR did not find any evidence of any errors or injustices in the discharge process. The medical authorities examined the applicant and found he had a disqualifying condition that did not meet Air Force standards and was not permanently aggravated by training beyond the normal progression of the ailment. It was recommended he be administratively separated due to the fact that his knee pain would interfere with the satisfactory completion of training or military duty. Based on the recommendation, the commander and the discharge authority concluded that discharge was in order. DPSOR concurs that this was the correct decision. Therefore, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation as reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, is correct. The applicant’s service characterization is also correct as reflected on his DD Form 214. Airmen are given ELS/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated within the first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a member served less than 180 days of continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, the uncharacterized character of service on his DD Form 214 is correct and IAW with DOD and AF instructions. A complete copy of the DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant is sensitive to the fact that such a designation of the applicant’s character of service does not afford him the opportunity to receive certain benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and could prejudice a potential employer. However, changing the character of service to honorable would be an indication that his knee pain represented a de novo permanent impairment or permanent aggravation of a pre-existing injury. Medical officials determined that his knee pain was the manifestation of the expected natural expression of a pre-existing condition. Thus, absent clinical or radiographic evidence of permanent damage to cartilage of the knee or its supporting ligaments, the Medical Consultant agrees with the disposition recommended by the applicant’s military providers. The Medical Consultant is compelled to avoid speculation or conjecture in making a determination in his favor and he opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. In the case under review, the applicant apparently developed stress fractures and was allowed to return to training after healing. While the applicant was at greater risk for a recurrence of the stress fractures, he developed knee pain instead. Nevertheless, in the training environment rules are established to preclude warehousing individuals while awaiting a healing process to take place for a given injury. The applicant had already been granted the rare opportunity to leave training and go on convalescent leave to allow healing of his stress fractures. However, upon, his return to training a completely different medical complaint arose (knee pain), which medical officials opined would further interfere with training for an indeterminate period of time. Consequently he was discharged IAW AFI 36-3208. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 June 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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. 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 the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-03113 in Executive Session on 8 July 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03113 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 July 2014, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 15 May 2015. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 20 May 2015. Exhibit E. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 3 June 2015. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 June 2015.