RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03991

   						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

The narrative reason for separation and reentry (RE) code on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to allow her to enlist in the AF Reserve.

APPLICANT CONTENDS:

She was incorrectly diagnosed with scoliosis and unfairly separated.  She does not have scoliosis. 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 12 Jan 10.

On 22 Jan 10, the applicant’s commander received a Medical Narrative Summary which indicated the applicant had scoliosis--a medical condition which would have precluded her from entering the service had her condition been known. 

On 28 Jan 10, the applicant’s commander notified her he was recommending her for discharge for erroneous enlistment—failure to meet Air Force physical standards.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, her right to legal counsel, and her right to submit statements on her own behalf.  

On 1 Feb 10, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an entry level separation for Erroneous Entry. 

On 2 Feb 10, the applicant was furnished an entry level separation (ELS), with “uncharacterized” character of service, a narrative reason for separation of “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards,” and was credited with 21 days of active service. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant, which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Department of Defense Instruction 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services, lists disqualifying conditions of the Spine and Sacroiliac Joints and reads: “Current deviation or curvature of spine (737) from normal alignment, structure, or function IF:

(1)	It prevents the individual from following a physically active vocation in civilian life.
(2)	It interferes with the proper wearing of a uniform or military equipment.
(3)	It is symptomatic.
(4)	There is lumbar or thoracic scoliosis greater than 30 degrees, or kyphosis and lordosis greater than 50 degrees when measured by the Cobb Method.”

The applicant submitted a letter from an orthopedic surgeon, dated 11 Sep 15, claiming “X-ray examination obtained in our office, full length AP scoliosis film, does demonstrate very slight curvature of the spine, T6 through L1, 5.4 degrees, [and] L1 through L4 measures 7.6 degrees.  No fractures or other significant bony abnormalities are seen.  Impression: Normal examination.  Very slight curvature of the spine.  Both curves, however, are measuring less than 10 degrees so we cannot call this scoliosis.  Again, patient does not have scoliosis.”  

Ten degrees of spinal curvature has been identified as a point at which the diagnosis of scoliosis should be considered.  While this is an important and relevant factor when considering triggers for further investigation and follow-up in the pediatric population, the Military Department does not make such a distinction for disqualification, particularly when the “curvature” [presumably any degree of curvature] is present in the “symptomatic” individual.  Moreover, even five years post-service, the applicant reported that she continues to experience periodic back pain, when reportedly lifting her child.  This is particularly concerning in the context of the physical and operational stressors confronting today’s active and Reserve component members; and sparing no particular career field.  Based upon the totality of evidence of record, the Medical Consultant regrettably recommends denial of the applicant’s petition.

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice with respect to the applicant’s, narrative reason for separation and separation program designator (SPD) code and characterization of service.  The base discharge authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant’s discharge.  Therefore, the applicant’s narrative reason for separation and SPD code are correct on her DD Form 214.  Based upon her ELS, her “uncharacterized” character of service is also correct.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  We did not find any evidence of any errors or injustices in the discharge processing.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 11 May 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

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 office of primary responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale 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:

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-2015-03991 in Executive Session on 18 Aug 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 11 May 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 6 May 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.