RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-00789
            INDEX CODE:  108.00
                 COUNSEL:  Disabled American
                           Veterans (DAV)
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was never provided a medical evaluation prior to his separation  although
his medical records indicate he was medically ill.

In support of the application, the applicant submits copies of his DD  Forms
214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty,  a  personal
statement from his wife and several notices  of  delinquent  and/or  overdue
payments.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 Aug 01, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  for  a  period
of six years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff  sergeant
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Dec 06.

The following is a resume of his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs):

Close-out Date   Overall Rating

      6 Apr 03         5
      6 Apr 04         5
      6 Apr 05         5
      6 Apr 06         5
      6 Apr 07         5
      6 Apr 08         4

On 6 Sep 08, he was honorably discharged for completion of  required  active
duty.  He was issued a reentry code (RE) code of 2X - 1st term, 2nd term  or
career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment.

He had served seven years and one month on active duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the  letter  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states a review of the applicant’s medical documents provided reflects  that
he carried numerous clinical diagnoses during  his  military  service.   The
listing includes hypothyroidism, migraine headaches, low  back  pain,  right
knee  pain,  mood  disorder,   bipolar   disorder,   personality   disorder,
hyperlipidemia, Episodic Mood Disorder, and Post-Traumatic  Stress  Disorder
(PTSD).

The applicant’s  separation  physical  was  performed  on  4  Sep  08.   The
evaluating provider noted the applicant’s “multiple concerns,” all of  which
were  documented  in  the  record.   The  provider  also  acknowledged   the
applicant’s “intermittent” back pain, his right  knee  pain,  the  recurring
migraine headaches of “differing intensity”, and a left  wrist  injury.   In
the final assessment, the evaluating  physician  determined  that  “at  this
time, no condition [has been] identified that  would  preclude  separation.”
He concluded, “The patient with multiple issues as outlined above; all  have
been addressed and are stable at present.”

The Medical Consultant  notes  the  Military  Disability  Evaluation  System
(MDES), is chartered to maintain a fit and vital fighting force  and  offers
disability compensation only for the medical condition(s)  that  (were)  the
cause for career termination; and then are  rated  only  on  the  degree  of
impairment  present  at  the  “snap  shot”  time   of   final   disposition.
Therefore, the mere presence of a diagnosed medical condition need not,  and
would not, automatically form the basis for career  termination;  nor  would
it justify the award of  disability  compensation  at  the  time  of  career
termination for other causes.  Additionally,  under  Department  of  Defense
1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, Enclosure 3,  Paragraph  E3.P3.3.3,
Adequate Performance Until Referral, “if the evidence establishes  that  the
service member adequately performed his or her duties  until  the  time  the
service member was referred for  physical  evaluation,  the  member  may  be
considered fit for duty even though medical evidence indicates  questionable
physical ability to continue to perform.”  The applicant completed his  term
of enlistment despite his medical  conditions.   Moreover,  under  Paragraph
E3.P3.3.4, Cause and Effect Relationship, “regardless  of  the  presence  of
illness or injury, inadequate performance of duty, by itself, shall  not  be
considered as evidence of unfitness due to physical disability unless it  is
established that there is a cause and effect relationship  between  the  two
factors.  On the other hand, the Department of Veterans  Affairs,  operating
under a different set of laws, is authorized to offer compensation  for  any
medical conditions determined service connected, without regard to a  proven
or demonstrated  impact  upon  a  service  member’s  retainability  or  duty
performance.

Although  the  applicant  retrospectively  desires  a  medical   basis   for
discharge, there is evidence of record which indicates his desire to  remain
on active duty and not be medically or otherwise processed out  of  the  Air
Force.  Therefore, it is likely that his expressed wishes or  motivation  to
serve and demonstrated improvement of his mental health  had  a  significant
impact upon the fact that a MEB was not convened in his  case.   Other  than
the reference to a 30-day profile restricting his  activities  due  to  knee
pain  and  a  single  reference  to  the  impact  of  his   medications   on
deployability, there was no evidence of on-going restrictions to  duty  that
would  preclude  continued  military  service,  due  to   a   psychological,
musculoskeletal, neurological, or  other  functional  impairment;  as  would
otherwise have been noted on a series of  AF  Forms  422,  Physical  Profile
Serial Report, for  one  or  more  of  his  medical  conditions.   The  best
opportunity to determine  whether  the  applicant  should  have  received  a
discharge for medical reasons would have been at the time of his  separation
physical; at which time, if  appropriate,  he  would  have  been  placed  on
medical hold to complete the necessary  MEB  or  Physical  Evaluation  Board
(PEB) actions.

The Medical Consultant opines the applicant’s ability to serve  should  have
been brought into question; however, he was  retained  over  the  course  of
several weeks to the point that his mental health issues were  entered  into
remission prior to his separation.

The Medical Consultant states the reason for the denial of his  reenlistment
is not clear from the record, but it appears to be related  to  concerns  by
the applicant’s commander and first  sergeant  of  the  applicant’s  partner
relations  difficulties.   The  Medical  Consultant  notes   the   applicant
appeared to have performed  well  early  in  his  career,  and  despite  his
marital and physical difficulties, wanted to continue to serve  and  support
his family to the point of desiring a  re-enlistment.   However,  commanders
hold the authority whether to allow re-enlistment of service members.   None
of the applicant’s medical conditions,  at  the  time  of  separation,  were
deemed  sufficiently  severe  enough  to  prohibit  or  interfere  with  the
separation process already underway; and, thus, would not serve as  a  basis
for discharge, were he already not separating.


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

_________________________________________________________________

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

A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 21 Aug 09 and 9 Sep 09, for review and comment within 30  days.
 As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  and
adopt his rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the  applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 18 Mar 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Panel Chair
      Member
      Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2009-00789:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Feb 09, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 14 Aug 09.
      Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Aug 09 & 9 Sep 09.




                                   Panel Chair