AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-03322 
COUNSEL : 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REUUESTS THAT: 
His  narrative  reason  for  discharge,  ttCompletion of  Required 
.  Active Service" be changed to reflect a IIMedical Retirement.Il 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
He should have received a medical retirement from the Air Force. 
He  now  has  a  30%  disability  rating  from  the  Department  of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) effective the date of his discharge. 
In support of  his appeal, applicant attaches a copy of the DVA 
decision,  dated  9  February  1996,  and  a  copy  of  a  medical 
examination for an annual flying/waiver, dated 27 May 1 9 9 2 .  
Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 November 1987 in 
the grade of airman basic for a period of six ( 6 )   years. 
While applicant was serving in the grade of sergeant, a Medical 
Evaluation Board  (MEB) convened on 24  March 1992 to consider the 
case  on  applicant  for  the  purpose  of  continued  active  duty. 
After consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and 
physical  examination,  the  Board  established  a  diagnosis  of 
Wlcerative  colitis  -  controlledll  with  an  approximate date  of 
origin  of  June  1991.  The  action  recommended  by  the  MEB  was 
'!Return to duty.!'  Applicant's case was subsequently presented to 
an  Informal Physical Evaluation Board  (IPEB) which  convened  on 
23 April  1992.  The  IPEBIs diagnosis was  VJlcerative  Colitis." 
The  IPEB stated that  the  IIMember's condition is currently well 
controlled and  does not  limit his ability to generally  fulfill 
the demands of his rank and office.  The PEB recommends member be 
returned  to  duty."  On  4  May  1992,  applicant  agreed  with  the 
findings and recommended disposition of the PEB.  On 4  May 1992, 
officials within  the  Office  of  the  Secretary of  the  Air  Force 

determined  applicant  was  physically  fit  for  further  military 
service and directed return to duty. 
Applicant was subsequently honorably released from active duty on 
2  November 1993 under the provisions of AFR  39-10  (Completion of 
Required Active  Service) in the  grade of  sergeant  ( E - 4 ) .   His 
reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  was  1J  which  reflects : 
"Eligible to reenlist, but  elects separation.  (All airmen who 
are  considered  and  selected  for  continued  service  under  the 
Selective Reenlistment  Program  (SRP), who elect separation, are 
He  served  6  years  of  active  military 
given  RE  code  1J) . I 1  
service.  Applicant was transferred to the Air Force Reserve for 
completion of an obligated term of service.  He was subsequently 
relieved  from  assignment,  Headquarters  Air  Reserve  Personnel 
Center  and  honorably  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  Reserve 
effective 20  April 1995. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Chief ,  Medical  Consultant ,  BCMR,  Medical  Advisor  SAF 
Personnel Council, states that  applicant was  disqualified  from 
flying duties in July 1992  when a waiver application was rejected 
by  Headquarters,  Air  Mobility  Command  Surgeon  General  (HQ 
AMC/SG), although his performance report through April 1993 shows 
he continued to perform his primary duties.  Following discharge 
from  the  service, he  has  received disability compensation from 
the  DVA  and  bases  his  request  for  records  correction on  this 
fact. 
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  DVA  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, disability rating percentage is based upon the member's 
condition  at  the  time  of  permanent  disposition  and  not  upon 
possible  future  events.  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. 
Evidence of  record established 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.  The Medical Consultant is of 
the opinion that no change in the records is warranted  and  the 
application should be denied. 

2 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The Chief, Disability Operations Branch, USAF Physical Disability 
Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD,  states that  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 records reflect that he was 
treated for other minor medical conditions while on active duty 
however, none were serious enough to render him unfit for further 
military  service  under  the  provisions  of  disability  law  and 
policy.  The fact that a person may have a medical condition does 
not mean that the condition is unfitting for continued military 
service.  To be  unfitting, the condition must  be  such that  it 
precludes the member from fulfilling the purpose for which he was 
employed.  The medical  aspects of  this case are thoroughly and 
accurately explained by the Medical Consultant.  They, AFPC/DPPD, 
fully  agree  with  his  comments  and  recommendations.  Recommend 
denial of applicant's request. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Applicant, in his response to the Air Force evaluations, states 
in part, that he was disqualified from flying duties in July of 
1992 when his waiver application was rejected by HQ AMC/SG. 
He 
was told that he would just continue in his desk duties as cargo 
load manager until his enlistment was up.  Applicant alleges no 
other options like a medical  cross-train or medical  retirement 
were presented to him.  Applicant  states that it is his opinion 
that he was hustled out of the Air Force and not fully evaluated 
or his options explained to him  because  the  force was  reducing 
and  they  did  not  want  to  pay  him  a  medical  retirement.  He 
alleges that his condition did not progress in severity, it was 
this severe when he  was  in the Air  Force and  it  did  alter his 
lifestyle. 
A copy of the applicant's response, with attachments, is attached 
at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 

3 

3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence 
has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable 
error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence 
of  record  and  applicant's 
submission, we  are not persuaded  that his narrative reason for 
discharge  should  be  changed  to  a  medical  retirement. 
H i s  
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these 
assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to 
override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force.  The  BCMR 
Medical  Consultant has  adequately explained  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 DVA.  We 
believe  that  the  applicant  is  being  compensated  by  the 
appropriate agency.  We therefore agree with the recommendations 
of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis 
for our decision that  the applicant  has  failed  to  sustain h i s  
burden  that  he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice. 
Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought. 

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 11 June 1998, under the provisions of  AFI 
36-2603. 

Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Robert W. Zook, Member 
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A .   DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 27 May 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 22 Jul 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Aug 9 7 .  
Exhibit F.  Applicant's Letter, dated 3  Oct 97, w/atchs. 

/ 

Panel Chair 

4