RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01018
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 October 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be changed to reflect a medical discharge.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge, he had some serious medical conditions.

He was not aware that there was  a  statute  of  limitations  to  contest  a
discharge.

In support of his appeal, he has furnished copies of numerous personnel  and
medical documents pertaining to his discharge.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 November 1972 for  four
years, and served as an aircraft maintenance specialist.

On 4 April  1974,  the  applicant  requested  separation  due  to  his  non-
productive status and a desire not to cross-train into  a  different  career
field, and also cited family concerns as an  additional  reason  to  support
his desire to be separated from the service.  His request was disapproved.

On 15 May 1974, the applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
recommend him for an  honorable  discharge  due  to  his  being  in  a  non-
productive status since 1 November 1973, and the fact he could  not  perform
in his AFSC due to his continuous duty excuses, specifically:

        a. Four medical, heavy-duty  excuses,  dated  19  October  1973,  12
           December 1973, 28 January 1974, and 2 March 1974

        b. His request through the Consolidated Base Personnel Office (CBPO)
           for a medical discharge

        c. His request for separation under the  provisions  of  AFM  39-10,
           paragraph 3-8o, unique and unusual reasons

        d. A recommendation by the Acting Chief, Personnel Division, and the
           Assistant DCS/Personnel, Strategic Air Command (SAC), that he  be
           separated

Although not stated as a  reason  for  discharge,  the  applicant’s  records
reflect that he was given an Article 15  for,  on  or  about  5  July  1973,
failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed  place  of  duty,  for
which he received a reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1),  suspended
until 18 December 1973, and forfeiture of $100.00 a month  for  two  months.
It also reflects that he was counseled on  7  May  1973  for  tardiness  and
uniform violations, and on 21 May 1973 for being late to work, he was  given
a Letter of Reprimand on 24 May  1973  for  failing  to  go  to  the  dental
clinic, and that he was counseled on 6 June 1973 for being late to work.

The commander advised the applicant that  military  counsel  would  be  made
available, if  requested,  to  assist  him  in  preparing  his  request  for
retention.

On 15 May 1974, the applicant waived his right  to  consult  legal  counsel,
request retention, or submit statements in his own behalf.

A legal review was conducted on 4  June  1974,  in  which  the  staff  judge
advocate recommended that the  applicant  be  separated  with  an  honorable
discharge characterization for his inability to adjust  to  the  demands  of
military life or to  meet  the  standards  of  duty  performance  and  self-
discipline required of satisfactory airmen.

On 7 June 1974, the applicant was discharged in the grade  of  airman  first
class (E-3) for his inability to adjust to the demands of military  life  or
to meet the standards of duty performance and  self-discipline  required  of
satisfactory airmen, IAW AFM 39-10, Chapter 3, Section B, paragraph  3-8(L).
 He received an honorable service characterization, and served  a  total  of
1 year, 9 months, and 5 days of net active service.

________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical  Advisor  is  of  the  opinion  that  no  change  in  the
applicant’s records is warranted.  A review of  his  medical  records  shows
that he was involved in a motor  vehicle  accident  on  12  July  1973,  and
sustained a scalp laceration which required  overnight  hospitalization  for
observation of a possible concussion and placement on quarters for one  day.
 He reported improvement  the  next  day  and  was  returned  to  duty.   He
returned to the clinic on 23 July 1973 with back pain and was  placed  on  a
light-duty  profile  for  seven  days;  examination  failed  to  reveal  any
significant pathology.  He  was  given  stretching  exercises  on  28 August
1973, X-rays on 12 October 1973  were  normal,  and  he  saw  an  orthopedic
surgeon on 13 November 1973 who  felt  he  had  a  mild  lumbo-sacral  liga-
mentous strain and placed him on an  L-3 profile,  restricting  his  lifting
and  duty  activities.   In  a  letter  of  29  March  1974,  the   hospital
administrator noted that the applicant had an  L-2  Physical  Profile  which
restricted him from heavy lifting; however, he noted no  indications  for  a
Medical Evaluation Board.

There was little mention of headaches in  the  service  medical  records  as
pertains to the applicant’s history of headaches  since  the  motor  vehicle
accident, but the headaches have become more significant over the  past  ten
years.  He has had negative MRIs and CT scans, and stated to  a  neurologist
in  2002  that  his  headaches  after  the  accident   originally   occurred
approximately six times a year, were severe  at  the  onset,  and  sometimes
lasted up to three days with lessening severity.  The  headaches  diminished
in frequency and severity over the 1970s and  1980s,  but  reoccurred  about
10 years ago.

On  21  October  1974,  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  awarded  the
applicant a zero disability rating  for  lumbo-sacaral  strain  and  organic
brain syndrome due to trauma (due to a high school football injury).  On  14
July 2005, he was awarded an additional 50% disability rating  for  migraine
headaches, and 10% for degenerative disc and joint  disease  of  the  lumbar
spine, mild.

Based on the documentation in his service  medical  records,  his  headaches
did not appear to be  disabling.   While  the  applicant  was  incapable  of
performing his current duties, cross-training into another career field  was
an  option  but  he  refused  the  opportunity;  hence,  he  was  not  truly
considered disabled and his medical condition did  not  cut  his  Air  Force
career  short  –  his  refusal  to  cross-train  did.   The   administrative
separation was  the  correct  decision  under  the  circumstances  since  he
couldn’t perform the duties of  his  AFSC  but  was  capable  of  performing
duties in another,  less  strenuous  career  field.   The  preponderance  of
evidence of the record shows that the  applicant’s  low-back  condition  was
appropriately managed, and action and disposition in this  case  are  proper
and  equitable,  reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force  directives   that
implement the law.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded in a letter dated 20 September  2007,  stating  that
he had previously asked for a medical discharge which was disapproved.

He states that after the auto accident, he had  a  lot  of  tremendous  back
pain, some days were better than others, and upon his release from  the  Air
Force, he was wearing a back brace which he has worn  throughout  the  years
and still wears.  He didn’t know what a migraine headache was at  the  time,
there was no pattern to the headaches, and they would only last  for  a  few
hours.  However, as he got older, the migraines  became  more  frequent  and
forced him to seek the help of a neurologist, and no medicine that has  been
prescribed helps.

He further states that, due to his migraines, he missed a tremendous  amount
of time at work when he was employed by the U.S. Postal  Service,  and  this
eventually led to his release in  May  2004.   He  has  had  four  different
employers since January 2007 as he could  not  perform  his  duties  due  to
tremendous back pain and the extensive standing time.  He  entered  the  Air
Force as  an  aircraft  maintenance  specialist,  and,  even  though  cross-
training would have given him an easier job, it would  not  have  eliminated
his back pain and migraines.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest  of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  and
adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the  applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The BCMR  Medical  Consultant
advises that while the applicant was incapable  of  performing  his  current
duties, cross-training into another  career  field  was  an  option  but  he
refused the opportunity; hence, he was not  truly  considered  disabled  and
his medical condition did not cut his Air Force career short –  his  refusal
to cross-train did.  Since he couldn’t perform the duties of  his  AFSC  but
was capable of performing duties in another, less  strenuous  career  field,
the  administrative  separation  was  the   correct   decision   under   the
circumstances.  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  Docket  Number  BC-2007-01018
in Executive Session on 25 October 2007, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
                       Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated 11 Sep 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Sep 07
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 07.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair