* 

'1 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

.. 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-03128 

FEB  1 0  1998 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

Applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect that  4 
'he  was  medically  retired  rather  than  honorably  discharged. 
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. 

.The 'appropriate Air Force offices evaluated  applicant's request 
and  provided  advisory  opinions  to  the  Board  recommending  the 
application be  denied  (Exhibit C).  The  advisory opinions were 
forwarded to  the  applicant  and  counsel for review and response 
(Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

- 

After  careful  consideration  of  applicant's  request  and  the 
available evidence of  record, we  find  insufficient  evidence of 
error or injustice to warrant corrective action.  The facts and 
opinions  stated in the advisory opinions appear to be  based  on 
the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant. 
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which 
entitled,  appropriate  regulations  were  not  followed,  or 
appropriate  standards  were  not  applied,  we  find  no  basis  to 
disturb the existing record. 

& 

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. 

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 staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. 
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and 
will only be  reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant 
evidence  which  was  not  reasonably  available  at  the  time  the 
application was filed. 

Members  of  the  Board  Ms.  Charlene  M.  Bradley, Mr.  Richard  A. 
Peterson, and Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., considered this application on 
27  Jan  98  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Air  Force 
Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 1 0  U.S.C. 1552. 

CH~RLENE M. BRADLEY 
Panel Chair 

U 

Exhibits: 

A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinions 
D.  SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 

25 Aug 97 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM: 

HQ AFPCDPPD 
550 C Street West Ste 06 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4708 

rrection of Military Record 

i 

JWOU-D 

ACTION':  Applicant requests that his honorable discharge initiated under 

AFI 36-3208 be changed to a medical retirement. 

FACTS:  Applicant voluntarily separated from the Air Force on 3 Jun 96 upon 

completion eleven years, four month, and nineteen days of active duty.  As he received a 30 
percent disability rating from the Department of Veteran Affairs @VA) approximately two 
months after his honorable discharge, he now requests that he be granted a medical retirement for 
his service-connected conditions. 

WCUSSIOpsl:  We carefully reviewed the AFBCMR application and verify that the 

applicant was not referred to or considered by the Air Force Disability System under the 
provisions of AFI 36-3212.  The purpose of the military disability system is to maintain a fit and 
vital force by separating members who are unable to perform the duties of their grade, office, 
rank or rating.  Those members who are separated or retired by reason of physical disability may 
be eligible, if otherwise qualified, for certain disability compensations.  Eligibility for disability 
processing is established by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when that board finds that the 
member may not be qualified for continued military service.  The decision to conduct an MEB is 
made by the medical treatment facility providing health care to the member. 

The applicant's medical condition is fully explained by the Medical Consultant; we 

concur with his advisory.  The medical record clearly shows that while the applicant may have 
been treated for various medical conditions while on active duty, none were serious enough to 
render him unfit for further military service under the provisions of disability law and policy.  He 
was fit for duty upon his Jun 96 separation from active duty. 

E 

b 

WCOMME-: 

We recommend denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant 

has not submitted any material or documentation to show that the service member was unfit to 
perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating as the result of a physical disability. 

Directorate of Pers Prog Management 

4 Jun 97 
96-031 28 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  BCMR Medical Consultant 

1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor 
Andrews AFB MD  20762-7002 

Applicant‘s entire case file has been reviewed and is forwarded with the following 

findings, conclusions and recommendations. 

REQUESTED ACTION:  The applicant was separated under the provisions of AFI 

36-3208 upon completion of required military service  on 3 Jun 96 after serving 11 years, 
4months, 19days on active duty.  He now applies requesting the records be changed his 
separation to a medical retirement. 

FACTS:  Review of available medical records shows applicant was treated 

throughout much of his service time for orthopedic injuries of his ankles and thumb, 
injuries mainly related to participation in basketball games.  He underwent several 
surgeries to correct problems,  all the while performing well in his work as noted on his 
performance reports.  He had a separation physical examination in Feb 95, and his 
history indicates he was “in good health” as reported by him.  The exam did not find any 
disqualifying defects, and he was found qualified for worldwide service.  In evaluating his 
service-connected conditions, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has awarded him a 
30% compensation for a combination of 4 different factors, and he bases his claim for 
medical retirement on this. 

~~ 

~ 

DISCUSSION:  Evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation 
indicate the applicant was fit and medically qualified for continued military service or 
appropriate separation and did not have any physical or mental condition which would 
have warranted consideration under the provisions of AFR  35-4.  Reasons for 
discharge and discharge proceedings are well documented in the records.  Action and 
disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance with Air Force directives which 
implement the law.  While the applicant was treated for some ordinary medical problems 
while on active duty, as will occur in most service members, none of these problems 
singly, nor any combination of them, was of sufficient severity to justify a finding of unfit. 
There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant deserved consideration for separation 
through the Medical Disability Evaluation System. 

The reason why the applicant could be declared fit for duty by the Air Force and later 

be granted 30% service-connected disability by the Department of Veterans Affairs lies 
in understanding the differences between Title 10, USC, and Title 38, USC.. Title 10, 
USC, Chapter 61 is the federal statute that charges the Service Secretaries with 
maintaining a fit and vital force.  For an individual 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 this determination is made, 

. _” 

-‘ 

namely that the individual is unfit, disability rating percentage is based upon the 
member’s condition at the time of permanent disposition, and not upon possible future 
events. Congress, very wisely,  recognized that a person can acquire physical conditions 
which, although not unfitting at the time of separation, may later progress in severity and 
alter the individual’s lifestyle and future employability. With this in mind, Title 38, USC 
which governs the DVA compensation system was written to allow awarding 
compensation ratings for conditions that are not unfitting for military service.  This is the 
reason why an individual can be considered fit for military duty up to the day of 
separation or retirement, and yet soon thereafter receive a compensation rating from the 
DVA for service-connected, but militarily non-unfitting condition. 

Evidence of record establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was 

medically qualified for continued active duty, that the reason for his separation was 
proper, and that no error or injustice occurred in this case. 

RECOMMENDATION: The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in 

- 

the records is warranted and the application should be denied. 

MEDERICK W. HORNICK, Col., USAF, MC, FS 
Chief, Medical Consultant, BCMR 
Medical Advisor SAF Personnel Council