RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02277
                       (CASE 2)
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 NOVEMBER 2005

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed to medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The VA rated him at 30 percent for the conditions that  ultimately  led  him
to be discharged from the military due to substandard performance.   He  was
unable to maintain performance in his specialty due to pain and  discomfort.
 A great injustice was done regarding  his  discharge  because  his  painful
medical  condition  did  not  allow  him  to  perform  his  military  duties
properly.

No  supporting  documentation  was  submitted.   The  applicant's   complete
submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 May 1974, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve  of
the Air Force, and was voluntarily ordered to extend active duty on  23  May
1974.  He was progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  first  lieutenant
effective and with a date of rank of 5 June 1977.

The following is a resume of his Officer Effectiveness  Reports,  commencing
with the report closing 31 August 1976:

            PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

            31 Aug 76        3-X-X
            27 Feb 77        2-2-2
            31 Aug 77        3-2-3
            28 Feb 78        3-4-4
            28 Feb 79        4-4-4
            31 Aug 79        4-4-4
On 26 November 1978, the applicant’s commander notified  him  of  Initiation
of Action Under AFR 36-3 (involuntary discharge) because of his  failure  to
demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required  by  an  officer  of
his grade; his failure to properly discharge assignments  commensurate  with
his  grade  and  experience;  his  progressive  downward   trend   in   duty
performance resulting in an unacceptable record of  efficiency;  his  apathy
and defective attitude toward the responsibilities required of  an  officer;
and, his failure to conform to prescribed standards of military  deportment.
 The applicant acknowledged receipt of notification, consulted counsel,  and
submitted a statement in his own behalf.   On  21 March  1979,  a  board  of
officers convened and determined that the applicant should  show  cause  for
retention  in  the  Air  Force.   The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt   of
notification and his right to appear with and/or be represented by  counsel.
 On 31 July 1979, the applicant waived the scheduled 36-3  Retention  Board.
The group Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case file and found  it  legally
sufficient.  This officer concurred with the proposed advice,  opinions  and
recommendations to separate the applicant from military service.  The  Major
Air Commander forwarded the case for review  with  the  recommendation  that
the applicant’s waiver be accepted, that he not be retained, and that he  be
honorably  discharged  from  all  appointments.   On  22 October  1979,   by
direction of the President, the Secretary of the Air Force ordered that  the
appointment of the applicant be terminated pursuant to Section  1162,  Title
10, United States Code, and Air Force Regulation 3603, that he be issued  an
Honorable Discharge Certificate, and  that  any  temporary  appointment  and
commission in the United States Air Force be terminated.

On 8  November  1979,  the  applicant  was  involuntarily  discharged  under
honorable conditions by reason of “Board Action (Substandard  Performance).”
 He had served 5 years, 4 months and 28 days of total active service.

On 28 January 1987, this Board denied a  request  by  the  applicant  for  a
change to the reason and authority for his separation.   A  summary  of  the
evidence considered by the Board and the rationale for its decision  is  set
forth in the Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR BC-1986-04034, which is  attached
at Exhibit E.

Based on his claim filed on 22 May 2001, the Department of Veterans  Affairs
(DVA) issued a rating decision granting  the  applicant  service  connection
for the  conditions,  right  foot  plantar  surface  callus  formation  with
tenderness, rated at 10%; Left Foot plantar surface  callus  formation  with
tenderness, rated at 10%; and, Pilonidal cystectomy scar,  ratable  at  10%.
A combined compensable rating of 30% was assigned.  A  bilateral  factor  of
1.9% was added for the right and left foot conditions.   Service  connection
was denied for the condition, bilateral pes planus, which was determined  to
have existed prior to service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant opines no change in the records is warranted.

The BCMR Medical Consultant affirms evidence of  the  record  clearly  shows
that the applicant’s service  connected  medical  conditions  were  not  the
cause of duty performance leading to discharge and that the  conditions  did
not render him unfit for duty and did not warrant  referral  for  evaluation
in the disability evaluation system.  The BCMR Medical Consultant  concludes
action and disposition in this case  are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR 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  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 6 June  2005.   As  of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response (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 probable error or injustice.  Evidence has not  been  presented
that would lead us to believe the  applicant’s  discharge  was  improper  or
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  governing  directive.   The  reasons
discharge  proceedings  were  initiated  against  the  applicant  are   well
documented in the  record.   His  contentions  concerning  this  issue  were
assessed by the BCMR Medical Consultant.   The  applicant  has  provided  no
evidence that successfully refutes this assessment or causes us  to  believe
that, at the time of his separation, he was physically unfit to perform  his
duties.  This being the case, we have no basis to find the applicant  should
have  been  discharged  due  to   “medical   reasons.”    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 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  AFBCMR  BC-2004-02277  in
Executive Session on 28 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
           Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
           Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jun 04.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 3 Jun 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jun 05.





                                  KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                  Panel Chair