RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02615
            INDEX CODE:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 February 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he was awarded a disability retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His release from medical hold and  return  to  the  Air  Force  Reserve  was
wrong.  He still suffers from chronic pain (taking 60 mg of morphine and  up
to 40 mg hydrocodone daily), inability to fully  straighten  his  left  leg,
problems with  both  knees,  and  limited  range  of  motion  of  the  right
shoulder, all stemming from a motor vehicle accident while  he  was  serving
on extended active duty.  In addition, his detached retina, occurring  while
he was on active duty, was not considered by the Physical  Evaluation  Board
(PEB).

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal  statement;
copies of medical records involving his  injuries  and  treatment;  and  his
discharge certificates from active duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 March 1968, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  in  the
rank of airman basic (E-1) at the age of 19 for a period of four years.   He
served as a Munitions Maintenance Specialist and was progressively  promoted
to the grade of sergeant (E-4) with a date of rank of 1  January  1970.   He
was honorably discharged on 29 February  1972  for  expiration  of  term  of
service and transferred to the Air Force Reserve (AFR).

The applicant continuously served in the  AFR  in  positions  of  increasing
responsibility attaining the rank of senior master sergeant with a  date  of
rank of 1 March 1996.   In  January  2002,  the  applicant  was  ordered  to
extended active duty and deployed to San  Antonio,  Texas,  to  serve  as  a
munitions superintendent.

On 23 May 2003, the applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident  near
his place of duty, sustaining multiple  injuries.   Following  treatment  at
local civilian hospitals, he was discharged to a rehabilitation facility  on
6 June 2003 at Wilford  Hall  Medical  Center  (WHMC).   On  11  June  2003,
following  his  treatment  for  rehabilitation  and  pain  management,   the
applicant was discharged to  home  on  convalescent  leave  with  plans  for
continued rehabilitation on an outpatient basis at  his  home  in  Oklahoma.
The applicant remained  on  active  duty  orders  until  completion  of  his
treatment and evaluation in the Disability Evaluation System  (DES).   There
is no evidence the applicant ever returned to work.

The applicant was referred into the  DES  in  February  2005.   The  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) conducted 17 February 2005 referred  the  applicant’s
case to the PEB.  On 4 May 2005,  the  Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board
(IPEB) considered the  evidence  of  the  applicant’s  medical  records  and
personal records and returned the applicant  to  duty.   The  applicant  was
released from active duty on 31 May 2005, and returned  to  Reserve  status.
There is no  documentation  to  indicate  he  has  participated  in  Reserve
activities since his return to duty.

Prior to consideration by  the  IPEB,  the  applicant  developed  a  retinal
detachment in the right eye and underwent eye surgery on  23  February  2005
to repair the detachment.  There is no documentation to show the outcome  of
that surgery.

The applicant is presently entitled to Reserve retirement  awaiting  pay  at
age 60 beginning in 2009.  As of 22 July  2005,  he  was  credited  with  35
years of satisfactory Federal military service.

_________________________________________________________________

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  that
the evidence of record indicates the primary residual from  the  applicant’s
multiple injuries was limited extension of the  left  knee  resulting  in  a
gait abnormality that limited his  ability  to  walk  long  distances.   His
medical records show no residuals of his  other  injuries  that  would  have
been  unfitting.   The  records  indicate  his   pain   was   satisfactorily
controlled without functional limitations and that there was no evidence  of
pain medications producing side effects that  would  impact  performance  of
duties.  The IPEB concluded the applicant’s impairments  would  not  prevent
him from reasonably fulfilling the purpose of his employment in  his  office
and   grade/rank/rating   in   his   career   specialty   as   a   munitions
superintendent.  The commander’s letter to the PEB  stands  in  contrast  to
the evidence of the medical records; however, it is very  likely  that  this
letter was based  on  obsolete  second  hand  information  and  not  current
assessments of his medical status.

The applicant points out that the residuals  of  treatment  for  a  detached
retina occurring while on active duty were not considered by the  PEB.   The
BCMR Medical Consultant states a  treated  detached  retina  itself  is  not
disqualifying for military service and does not  warrant  referral  for  MEB
unless there are residual visual impairments when using both eyes  that  are
incompatible with service.  Even complete eye loss  of  one  eye  with  good
preserved vision in the other eye may not be unfitting depending on  purpose
of  employment,  office,  and  grade/rank/rating.   There  is  no   evidence
submitted that shows residual visual impairments at the time that  warranted
referral into the disability system.

It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that 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:

The applicant contends that from the time of his accident  to  the  time  he
was released from active duty on 31  May  2005,  the  Air  Force  has  never
completed a complete comprehensive  physical  examination.   The  only  real
physical examination he’s received was done by the Veterans  Administration.
 He submits a copy of the VA review of their findings with his rebuttal.

A copy of the applicant’s rebuttal, with attachment, 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 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 was  improperly  returned  to
duty in 2005.  In order for a member to be retired  by  reason  of  physical
disability, by law, it must be established  that  the  member  is  unfit  to
perform the duties of his or her office and grade in such  a  manner  as  to
reasonably fulfill the purpose of their employment on active duty.   Neither
does the record reveal nor has the  applicant  provided  any  evidence  that
would lead us to believe that he was physically unfit within the meaning  of
the governing regulation, which implements the law.  In view  of  the  above
and absent persuasive evidence that  the  applicant  was  denied  rights  to
which entitled, appropriate regulations were not  followed,  or  appropriate
standards were not applied, we agree with the  opinions  and  recommendation
of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his conclusions as our findings  in
the case.  Therefore, applicant's request is not favorably considered.

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 issues 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 20 September 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
            Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
            Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2005-02615
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 Jul 06.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 06.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, not dated, w/atchs.




                                  MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                                   Panel Chair