RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02995
                                       INDEX CODE:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX                    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXX                            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  26 March 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment code be changed from “2Q” to a waiverable code of “3A.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was erroneously evaluated by a medical board  and  discharged  under  the
pretense that it was necessary for reclassification.  The medical  condition
for which he was discharged no  longer  persists  and  is  not  a  permanent
condition as decided by the medical board.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal  statement;
a Fit-For-Duty Evaluation Summary; copies of service medical  and  personnel
records; and information papers on Disability Evaluation System  Issues  and
Correction of Military Records.  The applicant’s complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 October 2001, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the
age of 35 in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) for a period  of  four  years
with eight years of prior active duty military experience in the  Army.   He
entered the Air Force as a general purpose vehicle mechanic.   Approximately
six months after entering the Air Force, the applicant  presented  for  care
of chronic recurrent back and knee pain  requesting  cross-training  into  a
less strenuous career field.  The  applicant  was  referred  for  disability
evaluation and referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)

The MEB narrative summary, dated 23 July  2003,  concluded  the  applicant’s
knee pain was incompatible with his current  job  but  suggested  retraining
into a less strenuous career field.  The MEB summary  stated  the  applicant
was not mobility qualified to  remote  area  or  hostile  areas  where  knee
pain/injury could inhibit safety of member or fellow airmen.  A  commander’s
letter, required as part of the disability evaluations,  dated  3  September
2003, indicated the applicant had missed considerable time from work due  to
medical appointments and utilization was severely limited  by  medical  duty
restrictions.

On 18 September 2003, the Informal Physical Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)  found
the applicant unfit for continued military duty  and  recommended  discharge
with  severance  pay.   The  applicant  appealed  to  the  Formal   Physical
Evaluation Board (FPEB) for return to duty with cross-training into  another
less strenuous career field. On 18 November 2003, the  FPEB  concurred  with
the IPEB noting his physical restrictions and contention for retention in  a
less strenuous career field.  The applicant  disagreed  with  the  FPEB  and
appealed to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC).  On  3
February 2004, SAF/PC determined that the  applicant  was  physically  unfit
for continued military service and directed he be discharged with  severance
pay under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1203.

The applicant was separated with an honorable discharge  effective  2  April
2004 with a separation code of JFL (disability severance pay) and a  reentry
code of 2Q (personnel medically retired or discharged).   He  had  served  2
years, 2 months and 19 days on active duty in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  is  of  the  opinion  that  no  change  in  the
applicant’s records is warranted.  The BCMR Medical  Consultant  states  the
evidence of record shows the applicant was properly referred  and  processed
through  the  Air  Force  Disability  System  resulting  in  discharge  with
severance pay.  Although he desired to be retained and cross-trained into  a
less strenuous career field, this is not an entitlement and is based on  the
needs of the Air Force at the time the member is being processed.   Although
the Air Force has jobs that  are  less  strenuous  than  a  general  purpose
vehicle mechanic, members in these  positions  are  expected  to  deploy  in
support military operations and are tasked with physically  strenuous  tasks
associated with deployments.  It is not in the  best  interest  of  the  Air
Force to retain members  who  cannot  fulfill  the  full  purpose  of  their
military occupations when doing so impairs accomplishments  of  the  mission
and shifts the burden of military deployments and extra  taskings  to  other
members.  The applicant did not posses any unique skills or  abilities  that
indicate retention with medical limitations that would serve  the  needs  or
best interests of the Air Force.

It  is  the  opinion  of  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  that  action   and
disposition in this case were 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  on  16
September 2005 for review and response within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

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’s  discharge  from  the  Air
Force with entitlement to disability severance pay was in error  or  unjust.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,  we  believe  the  detailed
comments provided by the BCMR  Medical  Consultant  accurately  address  his
allegations.  In view of this  finding,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and
recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and we adopt his rationale  as
a basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been  the  victim  of
either an error or  an  injustice.   In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

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 17 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
            Ms. Kathleen B. O’Sullivan, Member
            Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member



The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2004-02995 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 04, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 14 Sep 05.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 05.




                                  JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                                   Panel Chair