RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02939
            INDEX CODE:  108.00; 108.03
            COUNSEL: NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that:

      1.  He was medically retired.

      2.  He was issued a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge
from Active Duty, for his service in OPERATION Desert Storm (1991).

      3.  He was issued a DD Form 214 for his  service  in  OPERATION  Noble
Eagle (Oct 03 thru Dec 05).

      4.  He be paid per diem for a Temporary Duty (TDY) assignment  from  1
Oct 05 thru 12 Dec 05.

      5.  He be granted a Line of Duty determination for left knee injury.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was diagnosed with diabetes while on active duty.  He  was  deemed  unfit
for active duty service; however, he was not medically retired.

His orders were cancelled and he received  temporary  orders  for  60  days.
The temporary orders were issued without a fund site and  he  was  not  paid
per diem from 1 Oct 05 thru 12 Dec 05.

He was an  Information  Management  Assistant  (IMA).   His  left  knee  was
injured in the line of duty and he was deemed unfit  for  military  service.
Although he had been diagnosed with diabetes, he was told that the  diabetes
did not matter.

In support of the application, the applicant submits  an  excerpted  medical
report from his records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was issued a Reserve Order dated 2 Dec 99,  relieving  him  of
his then current  assignment  and  assigning  him  to  the  Retired  Reserve
Section effective 1 May 99.  He was notified of his eligibility for  retired
pay in the grade of Technical Sergeant (E-6) upon the age of 60.

On 2 Sep 02, a request for removal from the  Retired  Reserve  was  approved
and he was reassigned duties in the Security Forces Squadron.   He  received
an overall rating of “five” on  his  Enlisted  Performance  Report  for  the
period of 24  Sep  02  thru  23 Sep  03  which  included  laudatory  remarks
regarding his on and off duty performance, bearing,  and  volunteerism.   He
was subsequently released from active duty status “due  to  demobilization.”


On 19 Apr 07, the applicant was released from military service and  assigned
to the Retired Reserve Section.  He was placed on the Reserve  Retired  List
effective 1 Jun 06 in the grade of Technical Sergeant.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the  letter  prepared  by
the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFRC/A1K defers to the appropriate office in regards to  the  applicant’s
request for a medical retirement.  A1K notes a line  of  duty  determination
was finalized in Sep 07; however, there is  no  indication  that  a  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) or a Disability Evaluation System (DES)  process  was
initiated.  In  addition,  there  is  no  documentation  that  supports  the
applicant’s claim he was unfit for military service.

A1K recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be continued  on  active
duty orders for the period of 22 Dec 05 to 31 May 06.

A1K states that  if  the  applicant  can  provide  supporting  documentation
(active duty orders) to  reflect  his  service  in  OPERATION  Desert  Storm
(1991) and OPERATION Nobel Eagle (Oct 03 thru Dec 05), his DD Form 214  will
be corrected to reflect his service during these operations.

The complete A1K evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPSD recommends denial.  DPSD states the  applicant  was  discharged
from  the  Air  Force  Reserves  on  23  Sep  03  due  to  Release  Due   to
Demobilization.   DPSD  notes  the   legal   office   found   the   informal
investigation of the LOD Determination to  be  legally  insufficient  as  no
recommendation  was  submitted  by  the  investigating  officer.   His   LOD
Determination case was subsequently forwarded for administrative action.

DPSD states the evidence reflects the  Physical  Disability  Division  never
received a referral to the PEB and, therefore, could not  have  granted  the
applicant a medical retirement.

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Applicant states he was discharged 1 Jun 06.  He had two  surgeries  to  his
left knee while he was on active duty orders.   His  orders  were  cancelled
prior to his third operation when he was found unfit  to  remain  on  active
duty.  He questioned why he was not medically discharged  and  was  informed
that Individual Mobilization  Augmentee’s  (IMAs)  were  processed  under  a
different regulation.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial  of  the  applicant’s  request
for a medical separation/retirement.

Effective 12 Nov 04, the applicant had 22 years and 14 days of  satisfactory
service towards retirement.

On his initial assessment for enlistment into the Air  National  Guard,  his
DD Form 93, Report of Medical History, dated 10 Dec 77, reflects he  checked
“Yes” in the blocks to indicate a positive history of  swollen  and  painful
joints, broken  bones,  and  a  “trick”  or  locked  knee.   The  form  also
indicates he experienced a fractured left foot in  1971  and  a  history  of
meniscectomy and repair of torn ligaments in 1974; both with full  range  of
motion and no complications” on  examination.   His  left  knee  injury  was
recorded as occurring “while in college.”  He received  periodic  non-flying
medical  assessments  thereafter.   Previous  foot  and  knee  injuries  are
documented on his 12 Jul 81 evaluation as “no loss of  motion  or  strength,
well-healed” and “no sequelae,” respectively.  On 8 Jan  82,  the  applicant
signed another AF 93 and circled blocks indicating he  had  not  experienced
any significant illness, injury, or hearing loss  since  his  last  physical
exam/audiogram and was not currently taking any medications.  He  was  found
physically qualified for worldwide duty and retention in the  ANG.   In  Mar
84, he was seen in the emergency room and orthopedics clinic  for  pain  and
ecchymosis of the  lower  extremity  (blood  collection  visible  under  the
skin).  On 2 Feb 85, he again reported  no  significant  changes  since  his
last exam and was cleared as qualified for duty,  although  a  “3T”  profile
(temporary restriction to certain duties) was entered into block “P” of  the
Physical Profile Serial report.   On  or  about  7  Jan  86,  he  was  found
physically qualified for worldwide duty.  On 7 Sep 86, he was seen for  left
knee pain after  “twisting”  the  knee  and  falling  off  the  steps  at  a
barracks.  He was diagnosed with a “contusion/sprained  left  knee.”   On  5
Apr 87, he was seen after immersing his hands into a  cleaning  solvent;  no
residual signs of injury or irritation were noted  after  treatment.   On  2
May 87, he was again found physically qualified for worldwide duty.   On  19
Nov 88, reported to the clinic for  the  Remedial  Weight  Control  Program.
His weight and height were adjusted upward because he  was  a  weightlifter.
On 4 Feb 93, he checked the block “No” on his SF  93  for  problems  with  a
“trick”  or  locked  knee.   His  examination  demonstrated  surgical   cars
bilaterally with “full range of motion and strength.”  On 14 Jan 90, he  was
evaluated in follow-up of a cervical spine strain  and  contusion  sustained
when the wind reportedly blew a  camper  shell  off  the  back  of  a  truck
striking his head and neck  areas.   He  was  seen  on  2  Feb  90,  with  a
complaint of right shoulder pain and numbness of the  right  arm  and  hand.
No further work-up duty limitations or referrals appear in  the  record  for
the shoulder pain or extremity numbness.  On 23 Jul 93,  he  was  placed  on
“4T” status (non-worldwide qualified.   On  14  Aug  93,  he  completed  his
periodic physical assessment and checked “Yes” on his SF 93  for  “trick  or
locked” knee.  On 29 Sep 93, he returned to worldwide qualified  status  and
on 25 Feb 95, he was again ruled qualified for worldwide duty.

Although there is evidence the applicant received periodic exacerbations  of
his  left  knee  ailment,  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  precluded  the
performance of military service  for  a  sufficient  duration  or  level  of
sustained  restriction  to  duty  that  would  have  triggered   a   Medical
Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  and  further  processing  through   the   Military
Disability Evaluation System (MDES).  Certain medications, by virtue of  the
diagnosis alone, could be a trigger for an MEB.  Although there has  been  a
reference to Diabetes mellitus, and  possibly  asthma,  in  the  applicant’s
case, there is no evidence of  such  a  diagnosis  or  treatment  of  either
condition during his military service.

The MDES is charged with maintaining a fit and vital fighting force and  can
only, by law, offer compensation for the medical condition(s) that  are  the
cause of career termination; and then  only  to  the  degree  of  impairment
present  at  the  time  of  separation.   The  applicant’s  career  was  not
terminated, nor would have been, due to a medical condition based  upon  the
available  evidence.   There  is  no  evidence  that  his   medical   status
sufficiently interfered with his ability  to  perform  military  service  or
that he held sustained duty restrictions at the  time  of  transfer  to  the
Retired Reserve to warrant a Medical Hold  and  processing  for  a  possible
medical separation or retirement.

The DVA is authorized  to  offer  compensation  for  any  medical  condition
determined service connected without regard to its  demonstrated  or  proven
impact upon a member’s ability to perform military service.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION:

A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 2 Dec 09 for review and comment in 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 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  regarding  the  applicant’s  requests.   We
took notice of his complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case;
however,  we  do  not  find  his  uncorroborated   assertions   sufficiently
persuasive  to  override  the  rationale  provided  by  the   BCMR   Medical
Consultant and the Air Force offices of  primary  responsibility.   We  note
the applicant’s submission of active duty orders assigning him to  tours  in
support of military operations; however,  without  travel  vouchers  we  are
unable to conclusively determine  he  actually  completed  the  assignments.
Therefore,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and   recommendations   of   the
aforementioned 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.  In the absence  of  persuasive  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 this application in  Executive
Session on 12 Jan 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Panel Chair
      Member
      Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Aug 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFRC/A1K, dated 7 Nov 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSD, dated 21 Aug 09.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Sep 09.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 Dec 09.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 09.




      Panel Chair