RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00472 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge be changed to a medical retirement. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was immediately rated as 30% disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) after his separation. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of a DVA Rating Decision Continuation Sheet. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 17 June 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1). He was promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective 17 June 1982. He served as a C-141 Aircraft Loadmaster. The applicant suffered a low back injury when he fell on a log during survival training in January 1983, resulting in loss of flying status for approximately six months. He was examined and treated, and was able to return to full flying duties on 2 June 1983. A physical exam completed on 12 September 1983, noted the applicant was World Wide Service Qualified and did not require a waiver for his previous back injury. On 17 September 1984, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was not being recommended for promotion to senior airman (E-4) because his last Airman Performance Report indicated he had a negative attitude and a lack of motivation that was detrimental to job performance; and, since the report was rendered, his negative attitude and lack of motivation had intensified to the extent that he was uncooperative in performing even the lightest duties. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 18 September 1984. The applicant was examined and diagnosed with severe reflux esophagitis and duodenitis which ultimately resulted in a suspension from flying duties on 1 October 1984. On 4 October 1984, he submitted a Request for Miscellaneous Reason Separation, under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-10, paragraph 3- 15, to be effective 25 November 1984. On 2 November 1984, his commander non-selected him for reenlistment based on his work being below standards and being denied promotion to senior airman. The applicant acknowledged receipt and indicated he did not intend to appeal the decision. The applicant was honorably discharged effective 25 November 1984 under the provisions of AFR 39-10. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicates his separation code as “KND” (Voluntary- Miscellaneous Reasons) and his reenlistment code as “2X” (1st term, 2nd term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment). He served three years, five months, and nine days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his honorable discharge to a medical retirement. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant has not provided evidence to indicate he had a medical condition which would have disqualified him from active service at the time he elected an administrative separation. The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates the reason the applicant could be considered fit for duty despite the presence of a medical problem and later be granted a service-connected disability by the DVA, lies in understanding the differences between Title 10, United States Code (USC), and Title 38, USC, Chapter 61. The Service Secretaries are charged with maintaining a fit and vital force. The mere presence of a medical condition does not disqualify a member from service duty or qualify a member for a disability evaluation. For a member to be considered unfit for military service there must be a medical condition so severe that it prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank and experience. Once an individual is determined fit, they are returned to duty and may even have physical duty limitations. In this instance, the applicant’s condition at the time of discharge did not appear to have rendered him unfit for continued military service and he proceeded with a planned, requested administrative separation from the Air Force. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 November 2009 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 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 and do not find that it supports a determination that he was improperly discharged. We note the applicant’s contention that he should have received a medical discharge; however, as indicated by the BCMR Medical Consultant, there is no evidence in the available military medical records to show he was ever considered for, or diagnosed with, a condition while on active duty that would qualify for referral under the Military Disability Evaluation System. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 this application in Executive Session on 21 January 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00472: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 09, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Oct 09. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Nov 09. Panel Chair