SECOND ADDENDUM 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  93-01958 MAR 8 4 1999 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED: 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He  be  returned  to  active  duty,  with  promotion  to  the  grade  of 
master  sergeant,  with  backpay  and  service  credit  for  the  period 
following his discharge up to his return to active duty. 

By letter, dated 12 September 1997, applicant requests that, in the 
alternative, he be retired  (Exhibit P). 

RESUME OF CASE: 

The  applicant  is  a  former  servicemember  who  was  honorably 
discharged  on  6  June  1989,  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  35-4 
(Disability -  Entitled  to  Severance  Pay),  with  a  20%  disability 
rating. 
Applicant's  DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or 
Discharge  from  Active  Duty,  reflects  that,  at  the  time  of  his 
discharge, he was  credited with  15 years, 8 months,  and  6 days of 
active Federal service. 

On  17 November  1994,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  applicant's 
request that he be  returned to active duty  in the grade of master 
sergeant,  with  service  credit  for  the  period  following  his 
dischaxge up to his return to active duty  (Exhibits A through H). 

In an undated  letter addressed to the Secretary of  the Air  Force, 
applicant requested that he be returned to active duty.  His letter 
was  forwarded  to  the AFBCMR  as  a matter  coming under  its purview 
and  was  processed  as  a  request  for  reconsideration of  his  appeal 
(Exhibit I).  On 31 October 1995, after reviewing the documentation 
provided  with  applicant's  request  for  reconsideration,  the  Board 
was not persuaded that the finding of unfitness, at the time of the 
applicant's  discharge,  was  improper  or  contrary  to  the  governing 
regulation.  Accordingly,  the  Board  again  denied  the  applicant's 
appeal  (see Addendum to the Record of Proceedings). 

On  3  December  1996,  applicant  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Air 
Force  requesting  that  she  direct/permit  him  to  return  to  active 
duty.  He  provided  a  copy  of  his  AFBCMR  appeal  package  for  the 
Secretary's  review.  His  request  was  forwarded  to  the  AFBCMR  for 
appropriate response.  On 12 December 1996, the Assistant Secretary 

of  the Air  Force  for Manpower,  Reserve Affairs,  Installations and 
Environment  (SAF/MI) advised applicant that he had reviewed all of 
the circumstances of the case and did not find the decision of the 
AFBCMR  inconsistent with the evidence submitted and of record.  He 
was  further advised  that while  he may  be  physically qualified  for 
civilian  employment,  this  did  not  mean  that  he  was  physically 
qualified  for  worldwide  duty  and  enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air 
Force.  (See Exhibit J.) 

On  13  January  1997,  applicant  submitted another  appeal  to  SAF/MI 
requesting reconsideration of his appeal.  The request was reviewed 
by  the AFBCMR  staff and, on 30 January 1997, applicant was advised 
that  his  request  did  not  meet  the  criteria  for  reconsideration 
(Exhibit K) . 
By letter dated 27 May 1997, applicant again wrote to the Secretary 
of  the  Air  Force  requesting  reconsideration  of  his  appeal. 
Included  in  his 
copies  of  his  previous 
correspondences,  with  the  responses  from  SAF/MI,  and  a  statement 
from  the  senior  medical  officer,  Branch  Medical  Clinic,  Concord, 
CA, dated 22 April 1997.  (Exhibit L) 

request  were 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He  is  medically  fit  for  full  military  duty  as  evidenced  by  the 
22 April  1997  letter  from  the  Senior  Medical  Officer  for  the 
Concord Naval Weapons Station  (copy appended to Exhibit L).  He is 
also  deserving  of  the  extra  relief  requested  in  his  application; 
L e . ,  promotion to master sergeant, backpay, and time credit. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  relevant  facts pertaining  to  this  application, extracted  from 
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the Statement of 
Facts section of the original Record of Proceedings.  Accordingly, 
there  is  no  need  to  recite  these  facts  in  this  Record  of 
Proceedings. 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant  reviewed the 22 April  1997 statement 
provided by the Branch Medical Clinic at Naval Weapons Station, 
and  opined  that  it  is  not  sufficient  to  warrant  approva 
applicant’s  request. 
The  Medical  Consultant  stated  that  the 
statement  was  apparently  based  on  an  occupational  physical 
examination performed in March  1995.  He stated that a call to the 
clinic did not provide  any additional substantive information.  He 
stated he pointed  out to the doctor at the clinic that the letter 

2 

AFBCMR 93-01958 

. 

supplied  by  the  clinic  was  insufficient  to  justify  applicant's 
return  to  active  duty  based  on  the  physical  examination  of  1995 
which  did  not  address  the  underlying  condition  that  led  to  his 
separation  in  the  first  place,  the  somatoform  nature  of  his 
disqualifying pain syndrome.  (Exhibit M) 

By  letter,  dated  10  September  1997,  the  Senior  Medical  Officer, 
Branch  Medical  Clinic  Concord,  stated  that  all  pertinent 
information  was  not  given  to  the  health  care  providers  when 
evaluating  applicant's  fitness  for  duty  on  22  April  1997. 
He 
further recommended  that  applicant not be made  fit  for duty until 
review  of  past  MRI  and  determination,  preferably  by  further  VA 
exam/MRI, that his status as 20% disabled is no longer applicable. 
The complete statement is at Exhibit N. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

By  letter,  dated  12  September  1997,  Major  General  B---,  USAFR, 
Retired, responded in applicant's  behalf to the additional advisory 
opinion,  stating  applicant  should be  restored  to  active  duty,  at 
increased  rank,  and  permitted  to  continue  his  Air  Force  career. 
General  B---  requests  that  the Board  accept  the Navy's  conclusion 
that applicant is fit for full duty and direct his return to active 
duty. 

The response, with attachments, is at Exhibit P. 

By  letter,  dated  17  February  1998,  Ma]  Gen  B---  provided  a 
statement  from  applicant  stating  that  a  report  of  his  medical 
will 
condition  from  the  60th Medical  Group  at  Travis  AFB, 
indicate that he is in excellent condition -  and more  importantly, 
that he is worldwide qualified.  (Exhibit R) 

Under  separation  cover,  a  report  of  medical  examination,  dated 
15 January 1998, was received from the 60th Medical Support Squadron 
indicating applicant is qualified for worldwide duty.  (Exhibit S) 

By  letter,  dated  8  July  1998,  copies  of  correspondence  from 
applicant's  children to The Judge Advocate General, were  forwarded 
for inclusion in applicant's  case file (Exhibit T). 

By  letter,  dated  20 August  1998,  applicant's  former  area  defense 
counsel  provided  additional  comments  in  applicant's  behalf. 
Included with  the  statement was  documentation associated  with  the 
applicant's  court-martial action, which was subsequently set aside. 
(Exhibit U) 

A  letter  was  received  in  applicant's  behalf  from  the  6OAMW/IG 
(Exhibit V) . 

3 

AFBCMR 93-01958 

. 

By  letter,  dated  8 October  1998,  applicant’s  former  area  defense 
counsel  provided  additional  comments  regarding  the  court-martial 
conviction which was set aside.  (Exhibit W) 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

We  have carefully  considered the applicant‘s previous  submissions, 
as  well  as  his  most  recent  submission,  including  the  subsequent 
medical opinions and statements provided on the applicant’s behalf. 
However, we are not persuaded that his medical discharge was either 
improper or contrary to the governing regulation, which  implements 
the  law. 
The  subsequent  medical  opinions  suggest  that  the 
applicant is now medically qualified for worldwide duty.  However, 
we  found that  no evidence has been presented  showing that, at  the 
time  of  his  separation,  the  diagnoses  made  by  competent  medical 
authority,  and  the  subsequent  finding of  unfitness,  were  improper 
or based  on erroneous information.  In view of  the  foregoing, and 
absent  persuasive  evidence  showing  that  the  original  medical 
diagnoses, which  led to the applicant’s medical discharge, were  in 
error or unjust,  we  conclude that there is no basis  upon which to 
recommend  favorable  action  on  his  request  for  return  to  active 
duty.  In addition, we found no evidence that the applicant met the 
eligibility  criteria  for  retirement.  Accordingly,  his  alternate 
request that he be retired is not favorably considered. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate the existence of probable 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 20 October  1998, under the provisions  of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A.  Peterson, Member 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 

The following additional documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit J.  Applicant’s Ltr to SAF, dated 3 Dec 96; SAF/MI Ltr 

to Applicant, dated 12 Dec 96. 

Exhibit K.  Applicant‘s Ltr to SAF/MI, dated 13 Jan 97, 

w/atchs; SAF/MI Ltr to Applicant, dated 30 Jan 97. 

4 

AFBCMR 93-01958 

Exhibit L.  Applicant's  Ltr to SAF, dated 27 May 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit M.  Ltr, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 14 Aug 97. 
Exhibit N.  Ltr, AFBCMR, dated 18 Aug  97. 
Exhibit 0. Memo fr Sr Med Officer, Branch Med Clinic Concord, 
Exhibit P.  Ltr fr MGen Baumler to SAF, dated 12 Sep 97, 

dated 10 Sep 97, w/Memo, dated 22  Apr 97. 
w/atchs. 

Exhibit Q.  Ltr, AFBCMR, dated 5 Dec 97. 
Exhibit R.  Ltr fr MGen Baumler, dated 17 Feb 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit S. 
SF Fm 88, dated 15 Jan 98; SF 93, dated 15 Jan 98; 
Memo fr 60 MDSS/SGST, dated 18 Feb 98, w/atch. 
Exhibit T.  Ltr, AFLSA/JAJM, dtd 8 Jul 98, w/Ltr fr Applicant's 

Exhibit U.  Ltr fr Applicant's  former Area Defense Counsel 

(ADC), dated 20 Aug  98, w/atchs. 

Exhibit V.  Ltr fr GOAMW/IG, dated 7 Oct 98, w/atch. 
Exhibit W.  Ltr fr Applicant's  former ADC, dtd 8 Oct 98, 

children. 

w/atch. 

VAN GASBECK 

ne1 Chair 

5 

AFBCMR 93-01958 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  93-01958 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

K T  3  1  1995 

He be returned to active duty in the grade of master sergeant, 
with service credit for the period following his discharge up to 
his return to active duty. 

The  applicant  is  a  former  service  member  who  was  honorably 
discharged, on 6 June  1989,  under the provisions of Air  Force 
Regulation  (AF'R)  35-4  (Disability-Entitled to  Severance  pay) , 
with  a  20%  disability  rating. 
Applicant's  DD  Form  214, 
Certificate of Release  or Discharge from Active  Duty, reflects 
that, at  the  time  of  his  discharge, he  was  credited  with  15 
years, 8 months and 6 days of active Federal service. 
On 17 November 1994,  the Board considered and denied a similar 
request by  the applicant  (see AFBCMR  93-01958, with  Exhibits A 
through H). 
In an undated letter addressed to the Secretary of the Air Force, 
applicant requested that he be returned to active duty  (Exhibit 
I).  His letter was  forwarded to the Board as a matter  coming 
under  its  purview  and  was  processed  as  a  request  for 
reconsideration of his appeal. 

The  medical  condition  which  resulted  in  his  discharge  was 
prompted  in  large part,  and  aggravated by,  the  court-martial, 
which  is  now  a  nullity.  He  is  presently  healthy,  worldwide 
qualified, and fully ready to resume duties in the US Air Force. 
In addition to documentation .that was previously reviewed by the 
Board, applicant provided copies of a Report of Medical History 
and  a  Certificate  of  Medical  Examination  associated  with  his 
civilian employment.  (Exhibit I) 

We  noted  the  documents  provided  with  applicant's  most  recent 
submission, including the medical  documents associated with his 
civilian employment.  However, these documents did not  convince 
us  that  the  finding  of  unfitness,  at  the  time  of  applicant's 
discharge, was improper or contrary to the governing regulation, 
which implements the law.  Nor did we find any evidence showing 
that the finding of unfitness was based on erroneous information. 
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of persuasive evidence 
that  applicant's  discharge  was  improper  or  contrary  to  the 
governing law, we are unpersuaded that a revision of our earlier 
determination is warranted. 

BOARD D R m S

 m: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 reconsidered this application 
under the provisions of AFR 31-3: 

LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chairman 
Abner C. Young, Member 
David W. Mulgrew, Member 

The following additional documentary evidence was considered: 
Exhibit I.  Applicant's undtd Ltr to Secretary of the Air 

Force , w/atchs. 

LEROY T. BASEMAN 
Panel Chairman 

* .  

.

I

 

1 

i. 

AIR FORCE 
IN THE MATTER OF: 

RECORD OF  PROCEEDINGS 

BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  93-01958 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

. .  
':*.?;.;  7 
. .  

I995 

. 

He be  returned to active duty in the grade of Master Sergeant, 
with service credit for the period following his discharge up to 
his return to active duty. 
The court-martial conviction be removed from his records and that 
he be given restitution of all pay and benefits he forfeited. 

His  medical  discharge  was  a direct  result  of  a  court-martial 
proceeding  which  resulted  in  a  finding  of  guilty  but  was 
subsequently vacated when The Judge Advocate General of the Air 
Force  established  there  had  been  error  prejudicial  to  his 
substantial rights. 
In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  his  expanded 
comments outlining the events surrounding his court-martial and 
subsequent medical  discharge.  He  also provided  copies of  the 
orders vacating the findings and sentence of  the court-martial, 
copies of correspondence to/from his congressman, a statement in 
his  behalf  from his  legal  counsel at  the  time  of  his  medical 
separation,  and  documentation  pertaining  to  his  post-service 
employment.  His complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 October 1980 for 
a period  of  four years,  in  the  grade  of  Staff  Sergeant.  He 
reenlisted on 3  July 1984 for a period of four years, and again 
on 5 May  1987 for a period of six years.  He had 7 years and 2 
days  of  prior  active  service in  the  Regular  Air  Force, and  2 
years, 5 months and six days of prior active/inactive service in 
the  Air  Force  Reserve. 
His  highest  grade  held  was  Staff 
Sergeant.  On 6 June 1989, he was honorably discharged under the 
provisions of  AFR  35-4  (Disability-Entitled to  Severance Pay), 
with a 20% disability rating, in the grade of Senior Airman.  On 
25  March  1994,  his  DD  Form  214  (Certificate of  Release  or 

. .  
.
 

'

. 

i 

Discharge from Active Duty) was administratively corrected by the 
Air Force Military Personnel Center  (AFMPC) to reflect the grade 
of Staff Sergeant at the time of discharge. 
A  resume of  applicant's APRs  subsequent to his  3  October  1980 
enlistment follows: 

12 Feb 81 
17 Jul 81 
17 Jul 82 
17 Jul 83 
17 Jul 84 
9 Dec 84 
16 Oct 85 
16 Oct 86 
2 Jul 87 
13 Jun 88 

9 
9 
9 
9 
8 
7 
7 (Referral) 
8  (w/LOE) 
8 
7 (Referral) 

The records reflect that, on 27 April  1988,  applicant received 
nonjudicial  punishment  under  the  provisions  of  Article  15, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go at the 
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 18 and 
19 April 1988.  Punishment consisted of  a suspended reduction in 
grade from Staff Sergeant to Sergeant  (reduction suspended until 
26 October 1988) . 
Applicant was tried by Special Court-Martial and found guilty of 
filing a false and fraudulent claim on or about 21 January 1988. 
The sentence adjudged on 3  September 1988 consisted of reduction 
in grade from Staff Sergeant to Sergeant and forfeitures of  $75 
per  month  for  six  months. 
The  sentence  was  approved  on 
22 November 1988.  Per Special Court-Martial Order No. 2, dated 
15 July  1991,  The  Judge  Advocate  General  ordered  that  the 
findings and  sentence of  applicant's court-martial be  vacated, 
that the charges be dismissed, and all rights and privileges be 
restored. 
The following chronology of events leading to applicant's medical 
discharge was obtained from a copy of his service medical records 
provided by the VA. 
On 21 October 1988, a Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB) convened and 
established the following diagnoses:  Neck pain, low back pain, 
headaches, and pain and paresthesias of bilateral arms and legs. 
A x i s   I somatoform pain disorder.  Approximate date of  origin - 
June  1980.  The  MEB  recommended  the  case  be  referred  to  the 
Physical Evaluation Board  (PEB). 
On  8  December  1988,  the  Informal  PEB  reviewed  the  case  and 
recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay, with 
a  disability  rating  of  lo%,  for. somatoform  pain  disorder 
characterized  by  multiple  musculoskeletal  complaints  with 

.  - 

2 

moderate social and industrial impairment .  On 28 December 1988, 
applicant disagreed with the findings and recommended disposition 
of the Informal PEB and demanded a formal hearing. 
On 30 January 1989, applicant appeared and testified before the 
Formal  PEB.  He  also presented  two  statements for  the  Board's 
review .  Recommended disposition in the case was discharge with 
severance pay, with a disability rating of  20%.  The diagnoses 
(1) Somatoform pain  disorder  characterized by  multiple 
were : 
musculoskeletal  complaints with  moderate  social  and  industrial 
impairment;  (2) Evidence of HNP  at L5/S1 level, right side, and 
degenerative  disc  disease,  but  without  root  compression 
symtomatology. 
Other  diagnoses  considered  but  not  ratable: 
History of alcohol abuse, treated, 1974; inadequate personality; 
status post hand surgery  (right) for repair of  laceration; high 
serum cholesterol; high frequency loss,  A.U.  On 30 January 1989, 
applicant  did  not  agree  with  the  findings  and  recommended 
disposition of the Formal PEB. 
On  13  March  1989,  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  directed 
applicant's  discharge  with  severance  pay,  with  a  disability 
rating of 20%-  It was also  determined that applicant did serve 
satisfactorily in the higher grade  of Staff Sergeant. 

The  Military  Justice  Division,  AFLSA/JAJM,  stated  that  the 
applicant had been convicted of filing a false claim for damaged 
household  goods.  Upon  appellate  review, the  charge was  found 
deficient and the conviction was set aside. 
The court-martial action taken against the applicant has been set 
aside and the order indicates that  ''All rights, privileges, and 
property of which the accused has been deprived by virtue of the 
findings of guilty and the sentence so vacated will be restored-" 
Whether  this  extends  to  speculative  promotions  to  Technical 
Sergeant and Master Sergeant is beyond the purview and expertise  . 
of JAJM,  (Exhibit C) 
The  Directorate  of  Medical  Service  Officer  Management, 
AFMPC/DPMMMR,  reviewed this application and opined that no change 
in the records, insofar as it applies to the medical record, is 
warranted and the application should be denied. 
DPMMMR  stated  applicant  was  found  unfit  and  discharged  with 
entitlement to disability severance pay because of  (1) somatoform 
pain  disorder  characterized  by  multiple  musculoskeletal 
complaints with  moderate  social  and  industrial  impairment;  (2) 
evidence of HNP at L5/S1 level, right side, and degenerative disc 
disease, but without root compression symptomatology 20% ratable 
under diagnostic code  9505 and 5293;' other diagnoses considered 
history  of  alcohol  abuse,  treated,  1974; 
but  not  ratable: 

3 

. .  

(. 

i: 

inadequate  personality;  status  post  hand  surgery  (right) for 
repair  of  laceration; high  serum  cholesterol;  high  frequency 
loss, A.U.  The  applicant  was,  apparently,  found guilty  in  a 
Special Court-Martial on 3 September 1988.  He was then airevaced 
to Wiesbaden  for Medical  Evaluation Board  (MEB) processing  and 
evaluation by psychiatry, neurology, ENT and  Internal Medicine . 
On  21  October  1988,  the MEB  referred the case to  the Physical 
Evaluation Board  (PEB) .  At  no time do the  records reveal any 
mention of a court-martial.  There is no indication the medical 
discharge  was  a  result  of  a  court-martial  and  absolutely  no 
indication the MEB  was influenced by the court-martial. 
On 27 September 1988, applicant's commander wrote a letter to the 
MEB  requesting that he be  cross-trained or medically discharged 
because of being on a profile for  198 of 270 days which prevented 
him from doing his job. 
The complete AFMPC/DPMMMR evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
The  Chief,  USAF  Physical  Disability  Division,  AFMPC/DPMAD, 
recommended no change to the record, stating the disability case 
was  correctly  adjudicated  and  the  applicant  was  appropriately 
compensated under the provisions  of  Title 10, USC, Chapter  61. 
Medical  documentation presented  substantiates the applicant was 
unfit  for  continued  military  service. 
Vacation  of  the 
court-martial  conviction  did  not  affect  the  applicant's 
evaluation or right  to a full and  fair hearing within  the Air - 
Force disability system. 
DPMAD stated that an MEB, conducted in October 1988, questioned 
the  applicant's  medical  qualification  for  worldwide  duty  by 
reason  of  neck  pain,  low  back  pain,  headaches,  and  pain  and 
paresthesias of bilateral  arms and legs.  Medical documentation 
substantiates the applicant had  a long history of  chronic neck 
and back pain relating to a fall in June 1980 which was incurred 
in the line of duty.  He received physical therapy treatments and 
medication on and off since June 1980.  Prior to his assignment 
in  September  1987,  he  was  receiving  medication  and  therapy 
treatments  for  chronic  neck  pain  and  muscle  contraction - 
headaches. 
DPMAD noted  that  in the  formal hearing proceedings applicant's 
counsel entered into record two exhibits signed by the applicant, 
a letter to President Reagan and a statement subject to the facts 
of  the  case.  The  President  of  the  PEB  indicated  that  the 
exhibits pertained mainly to the court-martial case.  He stated 
such exhibits are not normally admitted because  cases presented 
to  the  PEB  are  medical  cases.  The board  agreed  to  allow the 
recording  of  these  exhibits  only  because  they  contained  some 
information relating to the applicant's medical condition.  At no 
time during the formal proceedings was the member's court-martial 
case discussed. 

The complete DPMAD evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

4 

0 

I 

The Airman  Promotions Branch, AFMPC/DPMAJWl,  recommended denial 
of  applicant's  request  for  a  promotion  to  Master  Sergeant. 
Although the applicant's Special Court-Martial was set aside, the 
fact he was found unfit for continued military service rendered 
him  ineligible for any further promotion consideration.  Unless 
the Board determines the applicant's discharge with severance pay 
is  unjust,  and  returns  him  to  active  duty,  he  will  not  be 
eligible for any promotion consideration.  (Exhibit F) . 

Applicant stated the advisories have focused on only one aspect 
of the board's purpose, and that is whether there was an error in 
the medical proceedings.  He stated the reason he applied to the 
Board  was  not  to  dispute  irregularities  in  the  medical 
proceedings but to request a review of the injustice which led up 
to, and directly brought about the medical proceedings; i.e., the 
court-martial which has now been reversed.  He offered comments 
addressing specific issues in each of the advisories. 
Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit H. 

D CONCTJJDES  T W :  

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  applicant's complete  submission, the 
Board was not convinced that he has been the victim of an error 
or  injustice.  Once  the  determination  was  made  by  competent 
military  medical  authority  that  applicant's medical  condition' 
made  his continued service questionable, his  case was properly 
referred  for  disability  processing,  in  accordance  with  the 
governing regulation, which implements the law, to determine the 
issue  of  unfitness.  After  a review  of  all  of  the  evidence, 
including  the  applicant's  testimony,  the  Physical  Evaluation 
Board  found the  applicant unfit  for continued military  service 
because  of physical disability, and  on that basis,  recommended 
his discharge with entitlement to disability severance pay.  We 
noted  applicant's  contention  that  his  medical  discharge  was  a 
direct  result of  his court-martial.  However, while  the events 
surrounding his  court-martial proceedings  may  have  exacerbated 
his medical condition, the available evidence of record reflects 
that he had a long history of chronicsneck and back pain relating 
to a fall in June 1980, which was incurred in the line of duty, 

5 

f' 

and  that  he  had  received  physical  therapy  treatments  and 
medication on and off since June 1980.  Once a member  is found 
unfit  to perform  the  duties of  his  office, rank, or  grade  by 
reason  of  physical  disability,  the  law  governing  disabilities 
requires that  the member be  separated.  The  applicant  has  not 
provided any evidence showing that his rights to due process were 
violated during the disability processing, that he was improperly 
evaluated, or that the final diagnoses by the PEB were erroneous. 
In  addition,  we  noted  that  subsequent  to  his  discharge, 
evaluation by  the Veterans Administration  (VA) resulted in the 
same diagnoses and ratings as rendered by the Air Force.  In view 
of the foregoing, and in the absence of substantial evidence that 
applicant's discharge was improper or contrary to law, we find no 
basis exists to overturn the decision of  the PEB and recommend 
favorable action on his  request  that  he  be  returned  to active 
duty. 
4 .   We  noted  applicant's  request  that  the  court-martial 
conviction be removed from his records.  However, inasmuch as the 
court-martial action taken against the applicant has already been 
set aside, this is a moot issue. 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not  . 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 17 November  1994, under the provisions of 
AFR 31-3: 

LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chairman 
Abner C. Young, Member 
David W. Mulgrew, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Dec 92, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

6 

I.. 

Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 14 Jun 93. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFMPC/DPMMMR, dated 25 Jan 94. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFMPC/DPMAD, dated 11 Feb 94. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJWl, dated 8 Mar 94. 
Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Apr 94. 
Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 May  94, w/atchs. 

LEROY 6. BASEMAN 

- 
Panel  hairman 

7