RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02886 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His entry level separation be changed to a medical discharge. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In Jun 11, he was rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs with a 40 percent service-connected disability and therefore, his separation should be changed to a medical discharge. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of a letter summarizing his benefits from the DVA. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 Jul 01, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force, for a period six years, in the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1). A medical narrative summary, dated 28 Sep 01, found the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist. On 21 Nov 01, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Separation of Airmen, with a reason for separation of “failed medical/physical procurement standards,” with uncharacterized service. He was credited with 4 months and 19 days of active duty service. On 1 Jun 11, the applicant was rated by the DVA with an overall and combined rating of 40 percent for Bilateral knee tendonitis, with pes anserine bursitis and iliotibial band syndrome and Bilateral ankle posterior tibialis strain. Other relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS found the separation was completed in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. On 28 Sep 01, the applicant was seen at the clinic where he was diagnosed with a foot problem that was disqualifying for military service. It was felt that the condition existed prior to entering the service and he did not disclose this information to the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) chief medical officer (CMO). It was also felt that the condition was aggravated by training beyond the normal progression of the ailment. He stated that he understood the diagnoses and treatment plan. Subsequently he was processed for an entry level separation. In addition, they note, it is unknown that if the applicant would have disclosed this condition to the CMO he would have been found disqualified, but it is clearly felt that the rigors of basic training aggravated the condition to the point he could not continue the required physical training. He applied for and received VA disability after separation, which does not validate that the condition was caused by the military training. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, stating, in part, 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 On 6 Jun 11, the applicant states that he was notified by the DVA that his reason for discharge was based on a service connected disability. However, his reason for separation on his DD Form 214 is correct. On 20 Nov 01, the discharge authority approved his separation and directed that he be separated with an uncharacterized entry level separation. The applicant should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because of bilateral pes planovalgus. Had the Air Force known of this condition at the time of his enlistment, he would not have been allowed entry into the military. The Air Force was not asked to give the applicant a disability separation because the medical staff found him unqualified and his medical condition did not meet assessment standards. The applicant's service characterization is correct as reflected on his DD Form 214. Airmen are given entry level separation/uncharacterized service 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. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 Oct 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) and we did not find the evidence provided sufficient to overcome their assessment of the case. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the OPRs and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered from an error or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-02886 in Executive Session on 14 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 12, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 17 Oct 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 22 Oct 12. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 12.