RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02289


      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  30 JAN 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed  from  “2Q”  to  “1”
which would allow him to reenlistment in the Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After 15 years of active duty, he was medically retired from  the  Air
Force and placed on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) in
July 1997.  In October 1998, he was notified  by  AFPC/DPPDS  that  an
Informal  Physicians  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)   had   convened   and
determined his medical condition had improved, but he  was  unfit  for
active duty.  He was  to  be  removed  from  the  TDRL  and  medically
separated with severance pay.

The findings of the IPEB were based upon a medical examination done by
Dr. J__, Orthopedic Surgeon, on 30 September 1998.  His  findings  did
not support the IPEB recommendations.  He recommended that  he  remain
on the TDRL and felt there was no “operative intervention”.  Even with
this evidence, the IPEB felt his condition had improved and sought  to
separate him.  He requested and was granted a review  in  front  of  a
Formal Physicians Evaluation Board (FPEB)  in  San  Antonio  Texas  on
 5 January 1999.

In summary, the FPEB agreed with the findings of the  IPEB.  The  FPEB
further went on to state that his medical condition  did  not  warrant
the 30% disability rating the Air Force had originally assigned to his
injury, thus not warranting his placement on the TDRL  in  July  1997.
Ironically, had he not been placed on the TDRL, he would already  have
been eligible for a regular Air Force retirement as early as May 2002.
 The FPEB also acknowledged that he was fit to return to  active  duty
if he chose to do so.  He had already  been  working  for  the  Boeing
Company in Aurora Colorado since December 1997, and could  not  see  a
return to active duty at that time.  As he recalled, at  the  time  of
the medical board ruling, he did not think to ask, and was not offered
an opportunity to serve in the Guard or Reserve.  The  FPEB  medically
separated him with severance pay and he returned to civilian status.

In July 2003, he was approached by SMSgt K__ about serving in the  Air
Force Reserve.   His  AFSC  in  the  Air  Force  was  1N5,  Electronic
Intelligence.  She  informed  him  that  her  Individual  Mobilization
Augmentee (IMA) unit had open master sergeant billets, and his  skills
would benefit her unit.  With the help of  MSgt  P__,  the  local  Air
Force Reserve  recruiter,  he  completed  the  ASVAB  and  passed  the
reenlistment physical.  His records and application were forwarded  to
the ARPC Surgeon General on the former Lowry AFB campus for a  medical
waiver.  The ARPC Surgeon General ruled that a  medical  waiver  could
not be granted because of his separation code on his DD Form 214,  and
he would need the Secretary of the Air Force waiver.

So far, no organization within the Air  Force  Reserve  structure  can
grant him an enlistment  waiver  due  to  the  SAF  FPEB  action.  All
organizations involved have said that he needs a SAF waiver.  He wrote
his Congressman, the Honorable Tom Tancredo of Colorado, and  enlisted
his assistance in filing a Congressional Inquiry. He received a  reply
back from the Deputy Chief, Congressional Inquiry on  24  March  2004.
He concluded that he needed to submit a request to the  AFBCMR  for  a
correction to his DD Form 214.

The dilemma he face  is  that  there  are  several  factors  that  are
incongruent with his separation from the Air Force and his entry  into
the Air Force Reserve. Had he not been placed on the TDRL in 1997,  he
would have already retired from the Air Force  and  had  full  retired
pay.  Since being placed on, and  then  removed  from  the  TDRL,  the
documented inconsistencies within the Air Force and Air Force  Reserve
are working  against  him  to  continue  to  serve  his  country.  The
inconsistencies are:

      1. The FPEB stated that the Air Force applied  a  faulty  rating
initially placing him on the TDRL in  1997.   Subsequently,  he  would
have served faithfully for another five years, thus becoming  eligible
for retirement.  This error on the side of the Air  Force  denied  him
the ability to finish his career.

      2. The FPEB accepted the findings of the IPEB, even  though  the
examining physician believed that he should remain on the TDRL.

      3. While in agreement with the IPEB, the FPEB ruled that had  he
been inclined, they would have allowed him to return to  active  duty.
With this statement documented on  the  AF  Form  54,  he  believes  a
correction to his reentry code (RE) should  have  been  done  at  that
time.  Since it wasn’t, the statement does provide documentation  from
the SAF FPEB board that they believed he could continue to serve.

      4. While  completing  and  passing  all  the  requirements  from
entrance into the Air Force Reserve, the ARPC SG stated that a medical
waiver could not be granted and he needed a Secretary of the Air Force
waiver to enter into the Reserve.  His decision  was  based  upon  his
separation code on his DD Form 214. The successful completion  of  his
physical coupled with the SAF FPEB statement in  item  3  above,  also
provides additional support for an RE code change.

The documented evidence presented at the FPEB  in  1999  coupled  with
July 2003 enlistment physical hopefully will allow the Board  to  rule
in favor of his RE code upgrade.  The Air Force Reserve Unit  assigned
to Buckley in Aurora Colorado was very eager to see him enlisted.   He
would have served faithfully for another  five  years,  thus  becoming
eligible for retirement.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a  copy  of  DD  Form
214, a personal letter, a  letter  from  his  Congressman,  a  medical
waiver review package, a copy of the PEB recommendation, and a copy of
Special Order #ACD-00470, removal from TDRL.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28 May 1982  for  a
period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade  of
master sergeant (E-7), with an effective and date of  rank  of  1  May
1996.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was convened on 16 April  1997  which
found the applicant medically unfit for continued military service for
his chronic left knee instability with pain, effusion and degenerative
arthritis. The applicant was placed on the TDRL on 19 July 1997.

On 30 September 1998, the applicant was scheduled for a TDRL  periodic
examination and was referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation  Board
(IPEB).  The IPEB recommended he be  discharged  with  entitlement  to
severance pay  of  20  percent  physical  disability  rating.   Member
appealed  before  the  Formal   Physical   Evaluation   (FPEB).    The
applicant's appeal was forwarded to SAF Personnel Council (SAFPC)  for
review.  SAFPC directed he be discharged with  severance  pay  and  20
percent disability rating.

On 23 February 1999, SAFPC directed the applicant be removed from  the
TDRL and be discharged with severance pay with a 20 percent disability
rating effective 14 March 1999, with  an  RE  code  of  2Q  (Personnel
medically retired or discharged), with an honorable discharge, in  the
grade of MSgt Sergeant. He had 17 years, 3  months,  and  22  days  of
military service for basic pay

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommended denial and stated the  prepondence  of  evidence
reflects that no injustice occurred during his processing to  separate
under disability with severance pay and his RE code  “2Q”  on  his  DD
Form 214 is correct in that it reflects he was approved for a  medical
separation from the Air Force service under the provisions of military
disability laws and policy.  The applicant’s goal of enlisting in  the
AF  Reserve  can  be  accomplished  through  other,  more  appropriate
avenues.
The veteran was approached by an Air Force Reserve Recruiter to enlist
in the Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) program since he had  a
critical Air Force Skills Career (AFSC).  He did pass his reenlistment
physical and the package was submitted for the Air  Reserve  Personnel
Center (ARPC) Surgeon General’s review for a waiver. He was  denied  a
medical waiver due  to  his  separation  code.   He  in-turn  appealed
through his Congressman to the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF).

Disability severance pay is a one-time lump  sum  payment  to  members
whose  military  service  is  ended  prematurely  due  to  a  physical
disability or mental disability incurred in the  line  of  duty.   The
reenlistment code identifies if a member will be  allowed  to  reenter
the military or requires a waiver to enter another branch of  service.
Unless erroneously given at the time of separation, this  code  cannot
be upgraded.

Having reviewed all his medical and personnel  records,  we  found  no
basis to correct his military  record  to  reflect  a  change  in  his
reenlistment code. We also determined the applicant was treated fairly
throughout the disability process  and  was  not  erroneously  briefed
concerning  his  rights  at  the   time   of   his   separation.    We
wholeheartedly agree with the IPEB and SAF/PC decisions and determined
no  injustice  or  error  occurred  in  the  process  leading  to  his
separation and issuance of 2Q reenlistment code.

Guidance from the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) Recruiter’s Office
recommends that his  recruiter  request  through  the  ARPC  Surgeon’s
office to the SAF  Reserves  Command  for  an  “exception  to  policy”
ruling.  However, member must understand that if  approved,  he  would
have to repay the severance pay he received  according  to  guidelines
set forth in Title 10 USC, Chapter 61.

AFPC/DPPD complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial and stated that  there  was  nothing  to
support of course of action requested by the applicant.

AFPC/DPPAE complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that  none
of the correspondence he has received to date addressed  key  portions
of his request for enlistment into the  Air  Force  Reserve.   In  the
AFPC/DPPD recommendation section, they stated that there  are  “other,
more  appropriate  avenues  through  which  the  applicant’s  goal  of
enlisting in the AF Reserve can be  accomplished.”   If  the  RE  code
change is not possible, he would be ever so  grateful  if  this  Board
could provide him that avenue.  The Air Force Reserve Unit assigned to
Buckley AFB in Aurora Colorado is very eager to see him enlisted.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

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.  In this regard, the Board notes that
the applicant has previously been advised that guidance from  the  Air
Force Personnel Center (AFPC) Recruiter’s Office recommends  that  his
recruiter request  through  the  ARPC  Surgeon’s  office  to  the  SAF
Reserves Command for an “exception to policy” ruling  to  resolve  his
issue.  In view of the above, the Board finds 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-
2004-02289 in Executive Session on 26 April 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 13 Sep 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 1 Oct 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 1 Nov 04.




                                   B.J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair