RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05403 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of “2Q” (Personnel medically retired or discharged) be changed to a code that would allow him to reenlist. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He desires to reenlist and has been denied VA Benefits. Upon arriving at Osan AB Korea, in July 2001, he was told that due to a past injury - he was not supposed to PCS. Due to his medical history he was sent to a Medical Evaluation Board, which chose to separate him from the Air Force. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 August 1998. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 18 December 2001 and referred the applicant's case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of Cervical and Thoracic Back Pain. On 8 January 2001, the IPEB found him unfit for further military service and recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent. The applicant did not agree with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB and requested a formal hearing. On 27 February 2002, the FPEB found him unfit for further military service. The FPEB further recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent. He did not agree with the findings and recommendation of the FPEB and did not to submit a rebuttal. On 1 March 2002, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be separated from active service for physical disability under the provisions of 10 USC 1203, with severance pay computed under Section 1212 of this title. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states RE code RE code 2Q is correct per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, chapter 3, based on his disability discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, accurately reflects his RE code at the time of separation. The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the Board consider changing the applicant's RE code to allow service re-entry. However, this should not be based upon an error or injustice, but upon the likelihood that, through time, the applicant has recovered from his previous injury. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant was injured in a fall during a training event. His injury received maximum medical benefit and included professional opinions_ and interventions recommended by multiple specialists; as well as an extended course of physical therapy and profile restrictions. Despite this evidence of record, the applicant was somehow allowed to PCS to Osan AB, ROK, which upon his arrival, healthcare providers opined he should never have been allowed to PCS. It is unclear what clinical parameters or measures were evaluated to clear the applicant for PCS, since he was already carrying profile restrictions that prohibited TDY and PCS assignments. Therefore, due to the applicant's history of intractable symptoms, medical officials proceeded with a Medical Evaluation Board; although the applicant contends he was asymptomatic at that point. The applicant wishes to re-enter military service, possibly as a Reservist. The Board and the applicant should be aware that the Reserve component often carries the heavier-lift among deployed missions. Thus, there remains some uncertainty of the durability of the applicant's reported symptom-free status if subjected to the rigors attendant with military service. The applicant's demonstrated service in the civilian sector, while noteworthy, is not equivalent to the physical and emotional stressors put upon our military personnel. The Board may elect to change the applicant's RE-code to allow him to serve the country, as requested. However, the objective supplied evidence does not reflect an error or injustice occurred in the previous discharge action. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he was hired as a police officer in Arkansas in January 2005. He worked in one of the most dangerous cities in the United States. He put his life on the line every day. He is currently a detective assigned to the violent crime unit and a member of the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team. He is exposed to stressful situations on a daily basis, situations where he has to make a split second life or death decisions and situations that are extremely physically demanding. He desires to reenlist. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 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 injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s rebuttal comments, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the RE code assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions. In addition, the applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe that a change to his RE code to allow him to reenlist is warranted. Therefore, we agree with AFPC/DPSOA and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 an 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-2013-05403 in Executive Session on 28 October 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 August 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 February 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 August 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 September 2014. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 September 2014.