RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00522 COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her records be corrected to remove the “medical coding” from her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, to allow her to reenter military service.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her medical diagnosis was incorrect and feels she should never have been discharged to begin with. She was discharged for having a torn meniscus and has documentation to support her claim.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 19 May 15.

According to a letter dated 17 Jul 14, provided by the applicant, her doctor states, “the applicant sustained a tibial spine avulsion fracture in a skiing accident. It was repaired arthroscopically with a suture technique. Her outcome and prognosis are excellent and she has been cleared to return to activities as tolerated.”

According to Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, on 16 Sep 15, the applicant was diagnosed by a staff physician with left knee osteoarthritis, left knee internal derangement and latex allergy. The physician noted the applicant has conditions which disqualifies her for enlistment in accordance with DoDI 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services.

According to DD Form 2807-1, Report of Medical History, dated 9 Oct 14, the applicant had left knee surgery in 2014 and was allergic to latex.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

On 18 Sep 15, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Defective Enlistments. The reason for the action was the applicant received a medical narrative summary that found she did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist. Further, the commander noted the applicant should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because of her left knee osteoarthritis, left knee internal derangement and latex allergy. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, consulted legal counsel and submitted written matters in her own behalf.

On 24 Sep 15, the discharge authority approved the separation and on 25 Sep 15, the applicant received an uncharacterized entry- level separation, with a separation code of JFW, which denotes “Discharge Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards” and was issued a Reentry (RE) code of 4C. She was credited with four months and seven days of active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C thru E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Advisor recommends denial indicating that DoDI 6103.3, states “stress fractures, recurrent or single episode during the past year, current or history of osteoarthritis (that interfered with a physically active lifestyle or that prevents the satisfactory performance of military duty), and hypersensitivity to latex are disqualifying.

The Medical Advisor concedes there was no evidence of meniscus injury according to the applicant’s surgeon at the time of repair of her tibial spine fracture. Other than the documented patellar fracture sustained by the applicant during her first week of Basic Military Training (BMT), there is no explanation for the findings of medial and lateral meniscus tears appearing in the applicant’s service treatment record. A Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) conducted after the applicant’s injury at BMT would be helpful. However, the applicant also had a latex allergy.

The Medical Advisor opines that more than one year has passed since the applicant’s 2014 tibial spine avulsion repair and acknowledges that her patellar stress fracture has likely healed at this juncture. Nonetheless, as likely disclosed to the applicant by her surgeon, she is vulnerable for developing post-traumatic arthritis in her left knee joint due to the injuries and surgical intervention. Although the allergist found the applicant to be at low risk of a serious reaction to latex, it is nonetheless listed as disqualifying in accordance with DoDI 6103.03.   While the

applicant has successfully argued against having a meniscus tear, returning her to duty, although possibly asymptomatic, poses an uncertain return on investment in training with respect to her knee, as well as the lifelong avoidance measures she must take for latex containing substances; albeit without apparent immediate risk for an anaphylactic response.

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial indicating 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 service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, the uncharacterized character of service on the applicant’s DD Form
14 is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force Instructions (AFIs).

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM evaluation is at Exhibit D.
AFPC/DP3ST recommends denial indicating the applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to her RE code.

The applicant received an erroneous RE code on her DD Form 214 of 4C, which denotes “separated for concealment of juvenile records, minority, failure to meet physical standards for enlistment, failure to attain 9.0 reading grade level as measured by the Air Force Reading Abilities test, or void enlistments.” Her correct RE code is 2C, which denotes “involuntary separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service, as required by AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF based on her entry-level separation with uncharacterized character of service. The RE code 2C applies in this case as 2# series RE codes have priority over 1#, 3#, and 4# RE codes if more than one RE code applies.

AFPC/DP2STM will administratively correct the applicant’s DD Form
214 to reflect RE code 2C upon final Board decision.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3ST evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 2 Nov 16, 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 BCMR Medical Advisor, AFPC/DP2STM and AFPC/DP3ST and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application except that which will be administratively corrected.

4.	The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2016-00522 in Executive Session on 13 Jun 17, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair Member
Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 16, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Excerpts from Master Personnel Records.

Exhibit C.	Memorandum, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated 24 May 16, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 1 Sep 16. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 14 Oct 16. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Nov 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 that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.