RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01561
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  ANDREW I. FURY

            HEARING DESIRED: YES




_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He  be  given  consideration  for  military  retirement  or  severance
compensation based on his length of service and medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged upon a determination of being medically disqualified
for continued Air National Guard (ANG) service.  He had  completed  17
years, 8 months, and 18 days of service towards retirement when he was
honorably discharged  upon  the  recommendation  of  the  ANG  Surgeon
General  (ANG/SG).   He  was  not  given  the  right  to  appeal   the
recommendation of ANG/SG even though he feels the option to appeal was
available but not properly briefed  to  him.   Had  he  been  properly
briefed on his options, he would have reached his 18th year of service
and been provided  sanctuary.   Further,  his  case  would  have  been
reviewed by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to determine whether  or
not he would be eligible to receive either a disability  discharge  or
Discharge With Severance Pay (DWSP).

In support of his appeal, the applicant has  provided  copies  of  the
ANG/SGP letter, his Air Force Form 526, ANG/USAFR Point Credit Account
summary, his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation
and Record of Service, as well as a copy of his discharge order.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Maryland ANG (MDANG) on 30  June  1977.   He
was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant with a date
of rank (DOR) of 14  April  1983.   On  29  January  1989,  a  Medical
Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  was  convened  to  determine   his   medical
qualification for  continued  military  service.   The  MEB  found  he
suffered from obesity and low  blood  sugar.   His  qualification  for
worldwide duty was found questionable and his case  was  forwarded  to
ANG/SG for a final determination.  The local MEB also noted he was not
eligible for disability processing as his affliction was considered to
have Existed Prior to Service (EPTS).  On 1 March 1989,  ANG/SG  found
him medically disqualified for continued ANG  service.   On  17  March
1989, he was honorably discharged from the MDANG  in  accordance  with
ANG Regulation (ANGR) 39-09, for Disability – Existed Prior to Service
(EPTS).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/A1POF recommends denial.  A1POF remarked on the age  of  the  case
and stated there were no records that existed on  the  member  in  the
Disability Evaluation System (DES).  However, A1POF  noted  the  ANG’s
long standing requirement that member’s be worldwide qualified is  and
has always been enforced.  The fact he was close to sanctuary, or even
if he had been in  sanctuary,  would  not  have  mattered  as  medical
determinations outweigh all other considerations.

A1POF’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends on 19 January 1984, he was on  active  duty  orders
attending a Shelter Management course at Myrtle  Beach  AFB,  SC.   On
that day he and 18 other Guardsmen were  getting  ready  to  fly  home
(Baltimore), when they were told the C-130 aircraft taking  them  home
was going to practice a ‘Hot Start’ meaning all  the  guardsmen  would
have to run and jump on the back lift of the aircraft as it taxied  to
the active runway.  This type of exercise simulates an aircraft  under
enemy fire taking on passengers.  He was carrying a 50 lb. duffel  bag
and heard his knee ‘pop’ when he jumped on the aircraft.  He  saw  his
own physician and began treatment for his  knee  soon  after  arriving
home but his knee did not respond to treatment.  He  was  put  on  Air
Force Form 44’s, Physical Serial Profile Reports, at  different  times
from March 1985 to 18 April 1986.  Due to this injury, he was not able
to complete his physical fitness training and was discharged in  March
1989 after serving for over 17 years.  Since his discharge, he has had
several problems with his left knee including being fitted for braces,
an MRI that revealed a 50% tear in his ACL ligament that was  repaired
via surgery at the Baltimore Veteran’s Administration hospital.

Applicant’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant opines the medical  evidence  of  record
indicates a torn medial meniscus of the left knee that  prevented  him
from running but did not prevent  him  from  performing  his  military
duties.  Physical Serial Profile reports indicated he  was  authorized
to walk for physical training and was qualified  for  worldwide  duty.
The applicant asserts the left  knee  injury  was  incurred  during  a
period of active duty  for  training  but  there  is  no  evidence  to
corroborate his claim.  Further, his left  knee  did  not  render  him
unfit for continued military service and was not the  subject  of  the
MEB for non-duty related obesity and hypoglycemia that led to  medical
disqualification and administrative separation.  At the  time  of  the
MEB, he was afforded the opportunity to submit  a  rebuttal  statement
but chose to not submit one and therefore did not contest the findings
of the MEB that his conditions were not incurred by  military  service
or that the knee condition was unfitting at that time.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends the AFBCMR Medical Consultant is incorrect when  he
states he could not prove that he hurt his left knee  while  attending
his Annual Training at Myrtle  Beach,  SC.  Applicant  points  to  two
eyewitness statements he provided in his  original  application.   One
eyewitness was on the aircraft at the time and the other was the  Non-
Commissioned Officer In Charge (NCOIC) of the 175th Clinic.

Applicant’s complete evaluation, with attachments, 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  to
include his contention he was not allowed to rebut the  MEB  findings;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office’s 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.  We note he was offered the  chance  but  chose
not to respond to the  findings  of  an  MEB  that  his  Obesity  with
Episodes of Hypoglycemia was unfitting  and  not  caused  by  military
duty.  Further, the MEB did not include any mention of a knee  problem
he contends he suffered from at the time. In fact,  the  BCMR  Medical
Consultant has indicated he injured his knee  in  1984,  continued  to
serve, and was not administratively separated until 1989.  We find  he
was not separated for disability  due  to  knee  problems,  but  those
unfitting conditions mentioned above.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

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  issue(s)   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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-01561  in  Executive  Session  on  24  January  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jun 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/A1POF, dated 11 Aug 06
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, APPLICANT, dated 28 Sep 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 27 Oct 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, APPLICANT, dated 9 Nov 06, w/atchs.



                                   Ms. Charlene M. Bradley
                                   Panel Chair