RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01809
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 DEC 05

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show  that  he  did  not  receive  a  retirement
physical.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not  receive  a  retirement  physical  examination.   The  retirement
physical in his records is fraudulent as it was actually  an  annual  flight
physical that was forged into being  a  retirement  physical.   He  filed  a
complaint with the Inspector General regarding  the  fraudulent  examination
with documented proof of the forgery, and no  action  was  ever  taken.   He
currently has a claim  before  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)
listing seven medical disabilities  which  include  cancer  (Agent  Orange),
sinusitis, osteoarthritis, atelectasis (both  lungs),  concussion  (aircraft
accident caused seizure disorder), tinnitus and hearing  loss,  and  chronic
disability of the right knee and  left  hip.   All  of  the  conditions  are
documented by active duty medical histories.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
documentation associated with his DVA appeal, documentation  extracted  from
his medical records, his retirement order, a copy of his DD Form 214, and  a
copy  of  his  DVA  rating  decision.    His   complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Enlisted Reserve  Corps  on  13  Dec  42  and  was
discharged on 22 May 44.  He was appointed a second lieutenant, Army of  the
United States on 23 May 44.  He served on various assignments  in  the  Army
Air Corps, Air Force Reserves, and on Active  Duty.   He  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel,  having  assumed  that  grade
effective and with a date of rank of 22 Feb 66.  He served  as  an  aviation
physiologist and a pilot.  On 1 Mar 70,  he  submitted  an  application  for
voluntary retirement to be effective 1 Sep 70.  On 24 Mar 70, he received  a
physical examination.  On  7  Apr  70,  he  submitted  an  addendum  to  his
application for voluntary retirement  requesting  his  projected  retirement
date be changed to 1 Jul 70.  He served 22  years,  7  months  and  26  days
total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states his medical clearance for flying expired over three months  prior  to
his projected retirement date.  A flying examination was required  in  order
for him to continue flying duties.  He also required a retirement  physical,
according to Air Force policy.  Records show he  underwent  a  comprehensive
examination that satisfied both requirements.  The applicant wrote in  block
5, Purpose of Exam, "An Fly + Retirement" indicating  the  dual  purpose  of
the   examination.    This   dual   purpose   is   also   written   on   the
electrocardiographic record as well.  The presence of an SF 89  and  SF  88,
one for retirement and one for medical clearance, is consistent  with  this.
Regardless, even if he had not known he was retiring  at  the  time  of  the
examination, the comprehensive nature of the  flight  examination  satisfies
the documentary requirements of a retirement medical  examination,  and  was
performed well within the 8-month time frame required by  regulation.   Even
though the retirement examination may not list every  reason  he  sought  or
received medical care over his 27-year career, the DVA has  a  copy  of  his
service medical record for use in adjudicating a decision regarding  service
connected disabilities.  The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he disagrees with the findings of  the  Medical  Consultant
and requests investigation by  a  senior  flight  surgeon.   The  regulation
governing this subject established procedures, examination, techniques,  and
medical standards from all medical examinations normally given  by  the  Air
Force.  He received a letter from the  base  personnel  office  stating  his
retirement would be effective 1 Sep 70 and that he would  be  notified  when
to begin medical processing.  His complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________

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  are  not
persuaded by his assertions that corrective  action  is  warranted  in  this
case.  We agree with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the  BCMR  Medical
Consultant who notes that the applicant received a  physical  prior  to  his
retirement which met the  regulatory  requirements  of  both  a  flight  and
retirement physical.  Therefore, we adopt his rationale  as  the  basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief   sought   in   this
application.

4.  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 issue  involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2004-
01809 in Executive Session on 9 Jun 05, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Mar 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Mar 05.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair