RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00636 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to the Air Force Reserve and placed on active duty for medical hold for referral to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The AFRC/SGP decision to deny medical hold because he had not overcome the presumption of fitness was erroneous. His physician’s submission of two approved line of duty (LOD) determinations was evidence that he had two disqualifying conditions that were not thoroughly considered by AFRC/SGP. The fact that he was on a profile limiting his fitness performance and testing is further evidence that he had overcome the presumption of fitness. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his AFRC IMT 348, Informal Line of Duty Determination, AF IMT 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, excerpts from his service medical records, and excerpts from AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 Jan 82 and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), effective and with a date of rank of 4 Dec 91. On 28 Jan 92, he was honorably discharged and was credited with ten years of total active service. After a short break in service, the applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve on 2 Apr 93 in the grade of specialist (E-4) and served until his honorable discharge on 1 Jul 94. On 25 Mar 96, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). On 31 Jan 2000, he was ordered to an active duty tour and served until his release from active duty on 27 Jul 00. On 28 Feb 01, he enlisted in the Georgia Air National Guard (ANG) where he was ordered to an active duty tour on 1 Jun 02 and served until being released from active duty on 1 Sep 02. On 29 Dec 02, he was discharged from the Georgia ANG and transferred to the Air Force Reserve where he was ordered to an active duty tour on 31 Jul 03 in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and served until being released from active duty on 30 Sep 03. On 13 Jan 04, he was discharged from the Air Force Reserve and transferred to the Alabama ANG where he was ordered to an active duty tour on 20 Jan 04 in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and served until he was demobilized on 22 Sep 06. On 22 Apr 07, he was discharged from the Alabama ANG and transferred to the Air Force Reserve where he was ordered to an active duty tour on 7 Jun 08 and served until he was released from active duty on 30 Sep 08. He was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), effective and with a date of rank of 21 Mar 02. On 11 Jul 09, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to deny him reenlistment for his failure to progress in the Air Force Physical Fitness Program, as well as for a lack of unit productivity in the orderly room. He acknowledged receipt of the action and elected to submit an appeal. On 16 Sep 09, an Informal Line of Duty (LOD) Determination was initiated to evaluate the applicant’s detached retina, for which he initially sought treatment on 15 Aug 08. The initial determination was existed prior to service (EPTS) – service aggravated; however, the approval authority overturned this decision in favor of a finding of in the LOD on 25 Nov 09. On 5 Dec 09, another Informal LOD Determination was initiated to evaluate the applicant’s hypersomnia with sleep apnea. The initial determination was EPTS – service aggravated; however the approval authority overturned this decision in favor of a finding of in the LOD on 8 Jan 10. On 5 Dec 09, the commander denied the applicant’s appeal of his reenlistment denial and on 13 Jan 10, he was relieved from his assignment and transferred to the Reserve Retired List to await retired pay at age 60. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/SGP recommends denial, indicating the applicant’s original request for medical hold was appropriately denied in accordance with the governing instructions. Despite his assertions to the contrary, AFRC/SGP was well aware he had two conditions that were disqualifying in accordance with AFI 48-123 and would require an MEB if he had not been pending separation. However, according to AFI 41-210, Patient Administration Functions, the existence of a physical defect or condition does not, in and of itself, necessarily provide justification for or entitlement to an MEB. The law that provides for military disability is not used to bestow additional benefits upon those approaching retirement or separation. If a member has performed his duty satisfactorily prior to scheduled retirement or an approved separation, a presumption of fitness is established. This presumption can be overcome if an acute condition, or serious deterioration of a previous condition, developed that would prevent the member from performing further military duty, were he or she not already retiring. His last evaluation on 12 Jan 10 notes he was fully capable of performing all his job requirements. For this reason and the fact that any pending MEB or fast track processing would have resulted in a return to duty determination, the presumption of fitness was not overcome and medical hold was appropriately denied. As for his inability to meet fitness standards as a consideration for medical hold, his service connected medical condition had no bearing on his fitness test, but rather was more affected by his lifestyle choices and personal commitment to meeting Air Force fitness standards. A complete copy of the AFRC/SGP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provides an expanded statement and copies of his point credit summary, as well as correspondence from the Department of Veterans Affairs (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The presumption of fitness may be overcome if evidence shows the existence of an acute grave illness or injury, a serious deterioration of a chronic condition, or a chronic condition exists and the member was clearly not able to perform the duties befitting of his office, grade, rank, and rating. The Medical Consultant opines that if an individual has completed his or her obligated term of service, but has been denied reenlistment due to administrative failures instead of a medical disqualification, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant alternative processing through the Disability Evaluation System (DES). While the inability to deploy to all conceivable locations may be considered in a fitness determination, it does not constitute an automatic basis for an MEB or a subsequent disability separation. The Medical Consultant did not find sufficient evidence to show the applicant was unable to adequately perform his military duties as an administrative specialist nor show that a physical disability was the cause for his terminating his career. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant insists that some of the facts in the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation are incorrect and misleading due to his last commander not correcting some controversial circumstances before his removal from command. Additionally, he indicates that he no longer desires reinstatement, but prefers that his medical records be thoroughly reviewed and considered by an MEB. He deserves this process by virtue of his long service. In support of his rebuttal, he provides an expanded statement, and a copy of an overview of his military service. A complete copy of the applicant’s response, with attachment, is at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including his response to the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of Air Force office or primary responsibility and AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their 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 basis for us to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. 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 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-2010-00636 in Executive Session on 16 Nov 10 and XX Dec 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/SGP, dated 9 Apr 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 10. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Jun 10, w/atchs. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 6 Oct 10. Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Oct 10. Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Nov 10, w/atch. Panel Chair