RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03288
INDEX CODE: 108.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge for unsatisfactory performance be changed to a medical
discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The discharge board should have used the evidence regarding the
medical condition for which he was being treated instead of making a
decision based on his weight problems.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided extracts from his
medical records.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 Jul 67 for a period
of four years in the grade of airman basic.
On 1 Feb 84, the applicant’s commander initiated action to discharge
him by board proceeding or waiver thereof for financial
irresponsibility and excessive weight.
On 15 Mar 84, a board of officers convened under the provisions of AFR
39-10 to determine whether he should be discharged from the service
prior to the expiration of his term of service because of failure in
the Weight Management Program and irresponsibility in the management
of his personal finances. After hearing the entire case, a majority
of the board found the applicant had exceeded weight standards between
28 Jul 81 and 5 Mar 84, which were not due to medical causes beyond
his control, and had been financially irresponsible between Jul 81 and
Sep 83. The board recommended the applicant be discharged for
exceeding the weight standards and financial irresponsibility with a
general discharge.
On 24 Apr 84, the discharge authority approved the discharge action
and directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge without
probation and rehabilitation.
On 13 Jun 84, the Secretary of the Air Force denied lengthy service
probation and directed the approved discharge be executed and the
applicant be discharged under honorable conditions.
Applicant was discharged on 20 Jun 84 under the provisions of AFR 39-
10 (Unsatisfactory Performance) and furnished a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge. He was credited with 16 years, 11
months, and 18 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Medical Consultant recommended denial indicating that at the time
of the applicant’s discharge, there were no medical conditions that
would have warranted his referral into the Disability Evaluation
System. The mere presence of a medical condition does not qualify a
member for disability evaluation. For an individual to be considered
unfit for military service, there must be a medical condition that
prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank and experience
or precludes assignment to military duties. In the Medical
Consultant’s view, the action and disposition in this case were proper
and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that
implement the law, and no change in the records is warranted.
A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit
C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 8 Apr
04 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant's complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly
noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the
documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Medical
Consultant. The evidence of record reflects the applicant was
involuntarily discharged for unsatisfactory performance. We find no
evidence which would lead us to believe that his administrative
discharge was improper or contrary to the governing directive under
which it was effected. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient
evidence the information used as a basis for his discharge was
erroneous, or at the time of his involuntary separation, the applicant
was unfit to perform the duties of his rank and office, we agree with
the recommendation of the Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale
as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an
injustice. Accordingly, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03288 in Executive Session on 18 May 04, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Sep 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 17 Mar 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Apr 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, dated 28 Apr 04.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1984-04083A
On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1991-02293A
On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01839
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01839 INDEX NUMBER: 108.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge from the Air Force for exceeding body fat standards be changed to a medical retirement. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In a...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03071
He was considered by Physical Evaluation Board and was advised by his counsel that the PEB decision "would not be in his best interest" and he was returned to duty. The Medical Consultant quotes the presumption of fitness as stating "active duty members who develop medical problems...". The board did not give favorable consideration to any evidence presented on his behalf including 18 years of outstanding service, medical records diagnosing bulging discs with radiating pain, and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03324
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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02928
The Board recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance/exceeding weight standards with an honorable discharge, but that he be offered probation and rehabilitation opportunities with a conditional suspension of the discharge. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial indicating testimony of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00205
A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit C. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report, which is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that based on the documentation pertaining to the applicant’s PRP permanent decertification, the discharge action would have...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02257
Based on available documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Aug 04 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 04.
Interestingly, the summary of applicant’s hospitalization in 1981 that resulted in his being placed on that medication describes his appearance as “mildly obese” and further review of records shows that his enlistment physical examination in Feb 71 recorded his weight at 213 pounds, well over weight standards at the time he was allowed to join the Air Force. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03534
Interestingly, the summary of applicant’s hospitalization in 1981 that resulted in his being placed on that medication describes his appearance as “mildly obese” and further review of records shows that his enlistment physical examination in Feb 71 recorded his weight at 213 pounds, well over weight standards at the time he was allowed to join the Air Force. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed...