RECORD OF PRPOCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05045 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Entry-Level Separation (ELS) be changed to medically service-connected. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was granted service-connection by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) and was informed that his ELS would be adjusted. However, it was not until he applied for a VA loan that he discovered it was not changed. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and a DVA Rating Decision memorandum. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 22 Jun 95, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 17 Aug 95, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened to consider the applicant for an Existed Prior to Service (EPTS) defect. The board recommended the applicant be granted an ELS for a pre-existing history of right meniscus tear, status post arthroscopic surgery and symptomatic right knee plica syndrome, interfering with his training. On 21 Aug 95, the applicant was informed of the findings and recommendations of the board and did not provide a letter of exception or rebuttal. On 8 Sep 95, the applicant was discharged with an uncharacterized character of service and narrative reason for separation of Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards. He served 2 months and 17 days of total active service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states that the evidence of record reveals the applicant did disclose his history of knee surgery to the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) Chief Medical Officer; however, it appears that only one of three surgeries was noted on his medical exam. While in training {sic} his right knee became symptomatic and he could not continue due to the pain. After his separation, the applicant was evaluated by the DVA and given a 30 percent disability rating based on his military service, which does not make the condition a result of his military training. Also, the DVA report classified the applicant’s condition as EPTS. SGPS states that the applicant’s separation was done in accordance with established policies and administrative procedures. Further, SGPS noted that it has been 17 years since the applicant left the service and there is no indication his condition was ever corrected, and possibly could have worsened over time. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Nov 12 and 14 Jan 13, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibits D). As of this date, this office has not received a response _________________________________________________________________ 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 an error or an injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we are not convinced he has been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of 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 that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2012-05045 in Executive Session on 6 Aug 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Military Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 11 Dec 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 13, w/atch. Panel Chair