RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03324
            INDEX NUMBER:  145.00
      XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he incurred a shoulder and lower
back injury while performing official duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He incurred his injuries while  attempting  to  remove  ejection  seat
rails that would not move up out of the rear cockpit.  He was observed
by four other men.  It was stated that he got injured in  a  wrestling
match with a friend.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 5 Oct  81.   On  1  Feb  85,  the
applicant’s squadron commander notified him that he  was  recommending
his discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory  duty  performance
and irresponsibility in the management of personal finances  according
to AFR 39-10.  The applicant was notified  of  his  right  to  consult
legal counsel, present his case to an administrative discharge  board,
be represented by legal counsel at a  board  hearing,  and  to  submit
statements in his own behalf, in addition to, or in lieu of the  board
hearing.  The applicant was scheduled to meet military  legal  counsel
and was scheduled for  a  medical  examination  on  14  Feb  85.   The
applicant was found to be worldwide qualified with  the  only  defects
noted as 41 pounds over maximum allowable weight  and  bilateral  high
frequency hearing loss.

On 1 Feb 85, the applicant’s squadron  commander  recommended  to  the
combat support group commander that the applicant be  discharged  from
the Air Force for unsatisfactory duty performance and irresponsibility
in the management of  personal  finances  under  AFR  39-10.   It  was
recommended that the applicant be  given  a  general  discharge.   The
applicant was not recommended for probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s notification  on
5 Feb 85.  On 6 Feb 85, the  applicant  acknowledged  his  rights  and
elected to have an administrative discharge board, to consult military
counsel, and not to submit statements in his own behalf.  His military
legal counsel endorsed the applicant’s elections.

On 14 Feb 85, the combat support group staff judge  advocate  reviewed
the discharge action against the applicant  and  found  no  errors  or
irregularities.   He   concurred   with   the   squadron   commander’s
recommendation of a general discharge and recommended that the  combat
support group commander direct  the  convening  of  an  administrative
discharge board.  On 19 Feb 85, the  combat  support  group  commander
directed  that  a  discharge  board  be  scheduled  to  consider   the
applicant’s recommended discharge.  On 24 Apr 85, the  combat  support
group staff judge advocate performed a  second  legal  review  of  the
recommended discharge action against the applicant.  It was determined
that an unusually long period of time had elapsed with no  board  date
set.  This was due to the applicant’s indication through counsel  that
he would submit a conditional waiver for an honorable discharge.   The
applicant did not submit the waiver until 16 Apr 85.  The  applicant’s
squadron commander supported the applicant’s request for an  honorable
discharge.  The staff judge advocate recommended that the applicant be
granted an honorable  discharge  and  not  be  granted  probation  and
rehabilitation.

On  1  May  85,  the  combat  support  group  commander  approved  the
applicant’s discharge under AFR  39-10  with  an  honorable  discharge
certificate without probation and rehabilitation.  The  applicant  was
discharged on 20 May 85.

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained in the
evaluation prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force  found
at Exhibits C and D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends that the  applicant’s  requests
be denied.  Evidence  of  the  record  indicates  that  the  applicant
strained his left shoulder in May 82 and  was  treated  with  physical
therapy resulting in full  recovery.   He  continued  to  perform  his
duties for three more years without further medical record entries for
shoulder problems.  No  back  problems  are  evident  in  the  medical
records.  As long as an injury incurred while on active  duty  is  not
due to misconduct or negligence, it is considered as  having  occurred
in the line of duty.  Whether  it  occurs  while  performing  duty  or
engaged  in  legal  and  approved  recreational  activities  makes  no
difference with regard to any service  connection  determination  that
may be made at a later date.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.  They provide
an  overview  of  the  disability  evaluation  system  (DES),  how  an
individual is normally processed through the DES, and when a condition
is considered unfitting.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on    25 Apr
03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not
been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an  error  or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
03324 in Executive Session on 4 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member
      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 10 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 21 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair