RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02847 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her entry level separation be changed to an honorable discharge. 2. Her narrative reason for separation (Termination of Initial Active Duty Training) be changed. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While in basic training she became sick and was told that she had bronchitis. She returned to the medical clinic for complications of fatigue, a constant cough and shortness of breath and was told if she returned to the clinic that she would be referred to psychological services. She eventually was diagnosed with hyperthyroidism. She believes she was eligible for disability processing and should have met a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of a complaint entry form and a 192 FSF/Separations memo. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 April 2010. On 2 July 2010, the applicant was released from active duty with an entry level separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3209 - Termination of Initial Active Duty Training. She served 2 months and 6 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states he has not been supplied medical documentation of the applicant’s episodes of care or any other objective medical evidence upon which an independent analysis of her fitness to serve or her eligibility for disability processing can be made. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption of regularity that proper procedures were undertaken in narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge and the authority under which it was executed. Nevertheless, had the applicant indeed been diagnosed with hyperthyroidism during her brief period of active service and the condition interfered with her ability to perform her duties, the Medical Consultant opines the physiologic mechanisms responsible for such a diagnosis, discovered after such a short period of service, more likely than not existed prior to her service entry; and, therefore, would likely have been found not in line of duty. Additionally, the Medical Consultant found no basis in science or evidence that her reported hyperthyroidism was permanently aggravated by military service. This is the likely reason the applicant was not eligible for processing as a compensable disability under AFI 36- 3212. Thus, she was instead “medically disqualified” for continued military service under AFI 36-3209, “ineligibility for worldwide deployment-medical disqualification.” Although the applicant reportedly experienced respiratory symptoms, and was reportedly diagnosed with “bronchitis,” the Medical Consultant opines this was an unlikely reason for termination of her military service. Addressing the applicant’s character of service, as depicted on both her DD Form 214 and NGB Form 22, the Medical Consultant notes this has been entered as “entry level.” The Medical Consultant opines the appropriate designation would be an “uncharacterized” character of service; a designation which is assigned when, within 180 days of active service, a member has been unable to complete training [in this instance Basic Military Training] due to deficiencies in conduct, performance, or behavior; or who have a medical condition that interferes with service, but is believed to have existed prior to entry upon active service without permanent aggravation by military service. The Medical Consultant did get a sense of possible emotional maltreatment or unprofessional conduct on the part of one or more medical providers, noting the veiled threat on the applicant’s Complaint Entry Form, which reads: “Doctor XXXXX advised me previously that if I returned I would be referred to BAS (Behavioral Assessment Service)” and the alleged “disrespectful tone” of a provider who reportedly told her she was “diagnosed with Hyperthyroidism and [that she] belonged at the 319th medical squadron.” However, the Consultant finds that validation of these complaints would be more appropriately addressed at the level of the Medical Facility Commander or Inspector General; the results of which are unlikely to have a bearing upon the requested action. Thus, the Medical Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. The Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 16 March 2012, a copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 warranting her character of service changed to honorable and her narrative reason for separation changed. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 4. Notwithstanding the above, we note that some relief is warranted. The BCMR Medical Consultant notes the character of service reflected on the applicant’s DD Form 214 and NGB Form 22 is incorrect. The applicant’s character of service should reflect “uncharacterized” rather than “entry level” a designation which is assigned when, within 180 days of active service a member has been unable to complete training due to deficiencies in conduct performance, or behavior, or who have a medical condition that interferes with service, but is believed to have existed prior to entry upon active service without permanent aggravation by military service. In view of the foregoing, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. 5. 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 RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: a. On 2 July 2010, she was discharged with service characterized as “Uncharacterized.” b. The NGB Form 22, Item 24, Character of Service, reflect “Uncharacterized” rather than “Entry Level Separation.” _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02847 in Executive Session on 17 April 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02847 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 July 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 16 March 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 March 2012.