RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04842 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed from “physical standards” to reflect he was granted a disability retirement. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. His FA failures were the result of a right ankle injury he sustained while deployed to Afghanistan in 2004. Also, he began experiencing post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during his deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and his symptoms continue to this day. 2. He was diagnosed by doctors to be processed through the medical evaluation board (MEB) due to the persistent problem with his ankle injury and PTSD and placed on code 37 (administrative hold while undergoing medical review). 3. He was refused eligibility for the rollback program because he was listed as code 37 and only his commander and base medical could have him removed. 4. His only option, without the code 37 removal, would be a hardship discharge and/or a discharge for FA failures. Although listed as Code 37 under medical review standards, his commander pushed for an administrative separation due to four FA failures to expedite his discharge process. 5. He was told that he needed twelve consecutive months before being able to determine if he met standards for a MEB. Therefore, his medical separation physical did not reference his right ankle injury or diagnosed PTSD. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 June 2002. On 10 September 2010, the applicant received a Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for failure to meet job performance standards. Specifically, he received an unqualified rating with eight deviations. As a result, the applicant was decertified as a Missile Alert Facility Manager and removed from the alternate unit emergency management position because the program failed to meet minimum standards. On 16 September 2010, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for dereliction in the performance of his duties on 23 August 2010, as facility manager, as evidenced by the Unit Emergency Management inspection failure. On 17 September 2010, the applicant participated in a FA where he was exempt from the cardio component. He was cleared to be tested on his height, weight, and abdominal circumference, push- up and sit-up components. He received a composite score of 69.75, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment. On 16 December 2010, the applicant participated in a FA where he was exempt from the cardio and strength components of the FA; he was cleared to be tested on his height, weight, and abdominal circumference components. He failed the waist measurement only FA, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment. On 16 March 2011, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failing the Air Force fitness standards for the third time. Although he was on a profile exempting him from the cardio and strength components of the FA, the applicant was cleared to be tested on his height, weight, and abdominal circumference components. He failed the waist measurement only FA, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment. On 26 March 2011, the applicant received a referral EPR for failure to meet and maintain minimum job performance standards and receiving NJP. On 4 April 2011, the applicant requested permission to re-take his FA with the understanding that he had 42 days following the 16 March 2011 FA failure to correct any deficiencies. He indicated that he will not meet fitness standards and had no desire to show progress. He further requested the opportunity to retest and expedite his separation from the Air Force to allow a swift transition to civilian status and move on with his life. On 4 April 2011, the applicant participated in a FA where he was exempt from the cardio and strength components of the FA; he was cleared to be tested on his height, weight, and abdominal circumference components. He failed the waist measurement only FA, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment On 28 April 2011, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for failure to meet minimum fitness standards. Specifically, the applicant failed the Air force fitness test four times within a 24-month period. On 3 May 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, waived his rights to consult with legal counsel, to submit statements in his own behalf, or have his case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 5 May 2011, the case was found legally sufficient and the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge, without probation and rehabilitation. On 19 May 2011, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Physical Standards.” He was credited with 8 years, 11 months, and 9 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a disability retirement. His mental health records, as well as his medical records, did not indicate conditions which met the criteria for or warranted a MEB. Additionally, there were no documented episodic complaints that interfered with the applicant’s military service to the extent or sustained duration that warranted a MEB or processing through the military Disability Evaluation System (DES) for a medical separation or retirement. The DES was established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force. By law, the DES can only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically render a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination. Service members are considered unfit when the evidence establishes that a member, due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, and rank. The applicant reasonably performed his duties. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, airmen who fail to meet standards of fitness not amounting to disability may be discharged. The case file does not contain medical evidence which shows an effect or causal relationship with the termination of the applicant’s service or as an alternative reason for his release from military service. In this case, the applicant failed to make satisfactory progress in the Air Force fitness program and there is no medical condition that established [or should have] a cause and effect relationship with the termination of the applicant’s service. As such, his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements for the existing discharge regulation. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) operates under Title 38 and is authorized to provide continuing medical care and assistance to all eligible veterans. The DVA is empowered to periodically re-evaluate veterans for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating should the applicant’s degree of impairment vary over time. Therefore, the applicant is encouraged to utilize the resources of the DVA to the extent that he may be entitled. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his argument that he was medically incapable of passing his physical fitness assessment. He believes that the Air Force has failed to recognize that he should have been discharged for medical reasons instead of failure to meet physical training standards. A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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 rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of 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. While the applicant contends that his medical condition was the cause of his inability to attain a passing score on his Fitness Assessments, he has presented no evidence to indicate that his physical limitations were not appropriately considered by the medical authorities in determining which components of the contested FAs were administered. Therefore, 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-2012-04842 in Executive Session on 30 July 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 September 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 January 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 11 April 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 19 April 2013. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 May 2013. Panel Chair