RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01470 XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His records reflect the correct spelling of his last name. (Will Be Administratively Corrected) 2. The type of separation he received be changed from “Entry Level Separation” to “Medical Separation.” 3. His character of service be changed from “Uncharacterized” to “Honorable.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has multiple service connected disabilities stemming from his service and receives medical benefits. Because of the type of discharge he received, he is unable to obtain all of his benefits, to include the GI Bill. The evidence he has provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) over the past seven years should support him receiving a more favorable discharge. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 19 August 2005, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. According to the applicant’s AF Form 31, Airman’s Request for Early Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation, dated 6 January 2006, he requested to be separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. On 11 January 2006, the applicant received an “Entry Level Separation” with uncharacterized service. His narrative reason for separation is “Defective Enlistment Agreement.” He was credited with five months and three 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 BCMR Medical Consultant, which are attached at Exhibits C and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his character of service to honorable indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant’s date of separation for defective enlistment agreement was approved in accordance with AFI 36-3208. On 5 January 2006, the applicant applied for a separation date effective 11 January 2006 for “Defective Enlistment agreement.” The discharge authority approved the applicant’s request for separation to be effective 11 January 2006. The applicant was only on active duty for 147 days when the discharge action was initiated; therefore, in accordance with AFI 36-3208, his separation with an entry level discharge was appropriate. Airmen are given an entry-level separation and uncharacterized service characterizations when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of Defense determined if a member served less than 180 days of continuous active service; it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. The applicant’s name is misspelled on his DD Form 214. Upon the final Board decision, administrative correction of the applicant's official military personnel record will be completed by AFPC/DPSOR. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends changing the applicant’s type of separation to “Discharge,” and his narrative reason for separation to “Disability,” and his character of service to “Honorable.” On 2 December 2005, the applicant was seen for shin splints. The provider referred the applicant to physical therapy, prescribed Naprosyn for pain, and recommended a waiver [presumably for retention]. AETC Form 125A, Record of Administrative Training Action, initiated on 20 December 2005, shows the applicant’s “ineffective” date or the date when he became disqualified as 3 November 2005. The document also indicates “member has a stress fracture; that he cannot complete training at this time; and that member is requesting separation IAW AF Form 3005, Section 1, B3.” The applicant’s training squadron commander recommended approval on 20 December 2005. Air Force policies dictate that if an individual is unable to complete training and has served less than 180 days, the service is uncharacterized. However, in view of the Department of Defense (DoD) policy, in effect at the time of the applicant’s service, namely DoD Instruction 1332.39, Application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities, the nature of the applicant’s medical condition [Stress fracture], meant the separation should have been administratively addressed like any other compensable medical condition in accordance with AFI 36- 3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation. A significant number of medical ailments first manifesting during Basic Military Training may have existed prior to the applicant’s entrance to military service, with or without his knowledge. Since the Military Department is not equipped to retain individuals during any lengthy healing process, they are more commonly released from military service, with the opportunity to reapply following recovery. These are commonly referred under Failed Medical Procurement Standards or Erroneous Medical Entry. There are clinical examples that could be presented, such as foot pain due to pes planus. However, since the pain is likely to recur if the individual is again subjected to the same training environment, a recommendation may be made against returning to duty. On the other hand, there are other conditions caused or permanently aggravated by the military training, which did not exist prior to the service member’s entry to military service; with or without any identifiable predisposition for developing the condition, as is often the case in the equally common patellofemoral pain syndrome [shin splints]. However, as stated above, in view of the DoD policies in effect at the time of the applicant’s service, specifically addressing stress fractures and the positive bone scan evidence of a stress fracture, the actions of the Military Department in this case could arguably be considered erroneous and unjust. Specifically that AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation, paragraph E2.A1.1.23.1.3 (Fracture of tibial and fibular malleoli are seldom displaced, may not require surgery, and except for offering some comfort, casts are not required. The most appropriate rating would be analogous to 5262, slight) applies to the applicant’s case. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his service characterization and type of separation. Based solely on the face of the documents presented, it does appear that clear error exists regarding the correction of the applicant’s last name since the DD Form 214 contains an incorrect spelling of the applicant’s last name. Therefore, AFPC/JA recommends the Board excuse the failure to timely file with regard to correcting his name on the DD Form 214. Regarding his service characterization and type of separation, the applicant states that he discovered the alleged error or injury on 5 February 2015; however, it seems clear that he was in possession of all the relevant facts on the date he received his DD Form 214 in 2006. The Board should not engage in speculation ten years later about what would have happened if the applicant had remained on active duty for more than 180 days, recovered from injury, and attempted to complete his training. The applicant received what he requested ten years ago when he voluntarily applied to separate early. Therefore, the type of separation and character of service indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214 are correct. A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 22 December 2015, copies of the Air Force and BCMR Medical evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F). FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, and the available evidence of record, to include the comments of the BCMR Medical Consultant, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice. We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, Correction of military records: claims incident thereto, and AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years prior to receipt of the application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more than three years prior to receipt of the application. Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief beyond that already granted administratively, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application. Accordingly, we find the application untimely. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01470 in Executive Session on 18 February 2016, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 March 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 12 August 2015. Exhibit D. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 November 2015. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 18 November 2015. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 December 2015.