RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02356
INDEX CODE: 108.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: UNKNOWN
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His military records be corrected to show he was medically discharged
because of service connected injuries.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was released from active duty due to injuries sustained while on active
duty and received an honorable discharge due to the Air Force’s inability
to fulfill his guaranteed training program agreement. His records should
be changed to reflect a medical discharge because he’s been awarded a 100%
compensable rating due to service connection and unemployability.
In support of his application, the applicant provides a statement from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) concerning his disability
compensation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 25 July 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age
of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of six years. After
completing basic training, the applicant was enrolled in training as an
aircraft armament systems helper. He was progressively promoted to the
grade of airman first class (E-3).
On 4 February 1981, the applicant reported to the medical clinic for
complaint of low back pain. He was diagnosed with congenital or
developmental spondylolysis, L-4, L-5. The applicant was treated but the
back pain persisted. On 27 March 1981, the applicant was put on a physical
profile that restricted him from lifting, repetitive bending, and marching
in excess of 15 minutes at a time. On 9 April 1981, the applicant was
eliminated from training in his current career field and recommended for
cross training into a job, which would conform to his restrictions. On 15
June 1981, he was evaluated by Orthopedic Services and recommended for
physical therapy, a permanent profile and a job not requiring repetitive
lifting and bending, or a discharge from the service. On 28 June 1981, the
applicant’s records met a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The MEB
determined the applicant’s condition existed prior to service and that it
was permanently aggravated by service. The MEB findings stated the
applicant’s defect rendered his medical qualification for worldwide duty
questionable and recommended his case be presented to the Informal Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB). The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) findings,
dated 15 July 1981, stated the applicant was not unfit because of physical
disability and suggested cross training might be appropriate. The
applicant agreed with the findings and recommendation of the board and
consequently, on 27 July 1981, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the
recommendation of the Physical Review Council that the applicant be
returned to duty.
On 30 July 1981, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request
for separation at the earliest possible date for Nonfulfillment of
Guaranteed Training Enlistee Program Agreement. The applicant was
separated with an honorable discharge effective 6 August 1981 under Air
Force Regulation 39-10, Chapter 3, Section B, Paragraph 3-8M with a
separation code of KDQ (Air Force failure to fulfill enlistment agreement)
and a reentry code of 1J (eligible to reenlist but elected to separate).
He had served eight months and six days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRSP recommends denial. DPPRSP states that the applicant’s
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements
of the discharge regulation and was within the sound direction of the
discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify
any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge process. Since the
applicant was cleared to return to duty, the Air Force could have retrained
him into a different career field and still utilized him to fulfill the
initial time contract the applicant signed. However, the applicant
requested to be discharged rather than to accept training in another
available skill. The DPPRSP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request. It is the opinion
of DPPD that the applicant has failed to provide appropriate documentation
to show why he should be awarded a disability discharge based on the
mandatory criteria required of military disability laws and policy. The
DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 24
December 2003, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find that
it supports a determination that the applicant was improperly separated
from active duty in 1981. We note that an IPEB found the applicant fit for
duty; however, the board recommended that he be cross-trained into another
career field, which would conform to his physical restrictions. After
being given the opportunity to cross-train, the applicant chose to
separate. In order for a member to be retired by reason of physical
disability, by law, it must be established that the member is unfit to
perform the duties of his or her office and grade in such a manner as to
reasonably fulfill the purpose of their employment on active duty. Neither
does the record reveal nor has the applicant provided any evidence that
would lead us to believe that he was physically unfit within the meaning of
the governing regulation, which implements the law. In view of the above
and absent persuasive evidence that the applicant was denied rights to
which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate
standards were not applied, we agree with the opinions and recommendations
of the Air Force advisories and adopt their conclusions as our findings in
the case. Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably
considered.
__________________________________________________________________
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 this application in Executive
Session on 12 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Mr. David C. VanGasbeck, Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-02356
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 7 Oct 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 19 Dec 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Dec 03.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02060
He received $5,100.00 in severance pay and was told when it was recouped he would receive a 10% disability pay. The applicant concurred with the findings of the PEB, and the PRC recommended to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council he be discharged with entitlement to severance pay with a 10% disability rating. DPPD states that service members discharged for a physical disability with entitlement to severance pay receive a one- time payment with no subsequent monthly compensation...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00599
The applicant departed for the European Theater of Operations (ETO) on 9 October 1944. DPPPR states that the Purple Heart Review Board recommended disapproval because frostbite is not a qualifying condition for award of the Purple Heart Medal, and the applicant did not provide any documentation showing he was wounded or injured as a direct result of enemy action. The DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03520
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged from the Air Force for a pre-existing condition that affected his tibia and knees. He has been trying to get back into the Air Force since his discharge and contends that he is 110% physically and mentally fit and is willing to do whatever the Air Force demands of him. He provided no evidence that his underlying condition has been corrected.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-03647
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 July 2003, the Board considered this application and recommended invitational travel orders be issued to the applicant for the purpose of undergoing a physical examination and review by the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), and the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to determine his medical condition as of 8 February 2000, and, that the results of the evaluation be forwarded to the Board so that necessary...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02483
The applicant’s psychiatric condition was properly rated by the Physical Evaluation Board. AFPC/DPPD stated that Air Force disability boards can only rate unfitting medical conditions based on the individual’s medical status at the time of his or her evaluation; in essence, a snapshot of their condition at that time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03102
However, evidence in the medical records show that he reported symptoms of depression in May 1993. The DD Form 261, Report of Investigation, Line of Duty and Misconduct Status, dated 7 May 97, which relates to the motor vehicle accident is incomplete. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant should be given a medical discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01886
The Medical Consultant also noted that the applicant completed a DD Form 2697, Report of Medical Assessment, as part of his separation physical examination in Jun 00, reporting problems with low back pain, shin splints and bilateral elbow tendonitis. Under the Air Force system (Title 10, USC), Physical Evaluation Boards (PEBs) must determine if an individual’s medical condition renders them unfit for duty. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-03793
A 22 February 2001, mental health appointment reported that when he was about twelve, he and two friends meditated. He underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB), and on 7 May 2001, the informal physical evaluation board (PEB) determined that his dissociated disorder was unfitting, existed prior to service without service aggravation and recommended administrative discharge. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
On this same date, military medical authorities reviewed his medical records and determined that a physical examination was not required. Applicant states that he requested a medical examination prior to his discharge but was not given one. His medical records were reviewed immediately before his release from active duty and military medical authority determined that a physical examination was not required.
The HQ AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 14 December 2001 for review and response. In addition, we noted DPPD’s assertion that, as a result of an informal review of the applicant’s records by the IPEB, it was their opinion that since his disability was not considered permanent and his temporary medical condition...