RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03145
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air National Guard (ANG) retirement order be removed; that  he  be
returned to Active /Guard Reserve (AGR) status  and  he  be  medically
retired.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While serving on a Title 10, active duty assignment as  the  HQ  ANG’s
training liaison at Keesler  AFB,  MS,  he  developed  several  severe
medical conditions that prohibited his ability to  continue  with  his
military career.  In 2004, he was submitted to  a  Medical  Evaluation
Board (MEB) and then an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  He
was told repeatedly during this time that all AGR,  Title  10  members
were put into “Returned To Duty” status  since  active  duty  couldn’t
tell the ANG what to do with their people.  Packages were forwarded to
ANG Surgeon General’s (ANG/SG’s) office for a final decision.  He  was
told several times by different Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO’s) from
ANG/SG that their office was ill-equipped to deal with such things and
that  the  packages  were  always  rubber-stamped  with   the   IPEB’s
recommendation.  This is the exact  scenario  that  happened  to  him.
Since he had no appeal rights, he felt he had to accept an ANG Reserve
retirement and save what health he had left.  He will not receive  any
retirement benefits until the age of 60.  After faithfully serving his
country for more than 30 years – all over  the  world  –  and  now  in
failing health due to that service, he feels he was  treated  unjustly
and unfairly by not being medically retired from active duty.  He  has
been denied the benefits and entitlements  of  such  a  retirement  by
ANG/SG and the IPEB by their refusal to consider the actual documented
medical facts and opinions of the military medical personnel involved.


In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement and  copies  of  pertinent  medical  records,  Congressional
inquiries, retirement documents, and MEB and IPEB documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in 1969.  He  enlisted  in  the
Utah Army National Guard in 1973.  He left the Army Guard in 1988  and
enlisted in the Utah Air National Guard  (UTANG).   In  1993,  he  was
selected as an instructor with the ANG NCO Academy.  In 2001,  he  was
selected as the ANG Training Liaison to Keesler AFB, MS.   He  met  an
MEB on 15 October 2004,  while  at  Keesler  AFB,  primarily  for  his
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  On 10 November 2004, the  IPEB
found him fit and recommended he be return to  duty.   On  1  December
2004, his case, with medical records, was sent  to  ANG/SG  for  final
determination on assignment limitation code  and  whether  or  not  he
would be medically qualified for deployment  or  worldwide  duty.   He
voluntarily applied for  a  Reserve  retirement  and  he  was  retired
effective 1 June 2005 awaiting retired pay at age 60.  He  had  served
over 37 years of combined active and Reserve component service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD notes the  applicant  was  found
fit by the IPEB and his case was  returned  to  HQ  ANG/SG  for  final
review.  The ANG placed him on a temporary P4T  profile  status  (non-
deployable) with a reevaluation not later  than  31 August  2006.   He
applied  for  retirement  and  was  separated  on  1 June  2005.   The
preponderance of the evidence reflects  that  no  error  or  injustice
occurred during the disability process.

DPPD’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

NGB/A1P0F states after consultation with the NGB Subject Matter Expert
(SME) they defer to the AFPC/DPPD advisory.

A1P0F’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant notes he was found  unfit  to  participate  in  the  Fitness
Program in 2002 through 2005.  The attending  physician  of  the  81st
Medical Squadron at Keesler AFB diagnosed him with a permanent chronic
medical condition that rendered him  not  world-wide  deployable.   He
contends ANG/SG has violated Air National Guard  Instructions  10-248,
36-101 and 36-3001 by finding him fit to return to duty.   He  accepts
the diagnosis and recommendation of the attending physician over a non-
medically trained administrative sergeant.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant  voluntarily  retired
for length of service from the ANG after the PEB returned him to  duty
following evaluation primarily for chronic obstructive  lung  disease.
Action and disposition in the case are proper and equitable reflecting
compliance  with  Air  Force  directives  that  implement   the   law.
Therefore no changes to his record is warranted.

The remaining pertinent medical facts are contained in the evaluation
prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8
January 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this  date,
no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 opinion and recommendation 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.  The IPEB recommended he be  returned  to  duty
and the NGB returned him to duty and put him on  a  profile  with  his
medical health to be reviewed by 1 August 2006.  Rather than remain in
the ANG until the August 2006 review, he chose instead to  voluntarily
retire after serving for more than 30 years.  The  applicant  contends
that he voluntarily retired to preserve his health. However,  the  ANG
authorities considered the nature of the applicant’s duties as well as
his well being as evidenced by his assignment of a  P4T  profile  that
limited deployment and activities deemed to be  inappropriate  by  his
physicians based on  his  chronic  lung  disease.  Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 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-
2005-03145 in  Executive  Session  on  13  February  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Ms. Barbara A. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 11 May 06.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1P0F, dated 11 Aug 06, w/atchs..
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 August 2006.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Sep 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Jan 07.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair