RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00636 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be reinstated to the Air Force Reserve and placed on active 
duty for medical hold for referral to a Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The AFRC/SGP decision to deny medical hold because he had not 
overcome the presumption of fitness was erroneous. His 
physician’s submission of two approved line of duty (LOD) 
determinations was evidence that he had two disqualifying 
conditions that were not thoroughly considered by AFRC/SGP. The 
fact that he was on a profile limiting his fitness performance 
and testing is further evidence that he had overcome the 
presumption of fitness. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
AFRC IMT 348, Informal Line of Duty Determination, AF IMT 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, excerpts from his service 
medical records, and excerpts from AFI 48-123, Medical 
Examinations and Standards. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 29 Jan 82 and was progressively 
promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), effective and with 
a date of rank of 4 Dec 91. On 28 Jan 92, he was honorably 
discharged and was credited with ten years of total active 
service. 

 

After a short break in service, the applicant enlisted in the US 
Army Reserve on 2 Apr 93 in the grade of specialist (E-4) and 
served until his honorable discharge on 1 Jul 94. 


On 25 Mar 96, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in 
the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). On 31 Jan 2000, he was 
ordered to an active duty tour and served until his release from 
active duty on 27 Jul 00. On 28 Feb 01, he enlisted in the 
Georgia Air National Guard (ANG) where he was ordered to an 
active duty tour on 1 Jun 02 and served until being released 
from active duty on 1 Sep 02. On 29 Dec 02, he was discharged 
from the Georgia ANG and transferred to the Air Force Reserve 
where he was ordered to an active duty tour on 31 Jul 03 in 
support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and served until being 
released from active duty on 30 Sep 03. On 13 Jan 04, he was 
discharged from the Air Force Reserve and transferred to the 
Alabama ANG where he was ordered to an active duty tour on 
20 Jan 04 in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and served 
until he was demobilized on 22 Sep 06. On 22 Apr 07, he was 
discharged from the Alabama ANG and transferred to the Air Force 
Reserve where he was ordered to an active duty tour on 7 Jun 08 
and served until he was released from active duty on 30 Sep 08. 
He was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant 
(E-6), effective and with a date of rank of 21 Mar 02. 

 

On 11 Jul 09, the applicant’s commander notified him of his 
intent to deny him reenlistment for his failure to progress in 
the Air Force Physical Fitness Program, as well as for a lack of 
unit productivity in the orderly room. He acknowledged receipt 
of the action and elected to submit an appeal. 

 

On 16 Sep 09, an Informal Line of Duty (LOD) Determination was 
initiated to evaluate the applicant’s detached retina, for which 
he initially sought treatment on 15 Aug 08. The initial 
determination was existed prior to service (EPTS) – service 
aggravated; however, the approval authority overturned this 
decision in favor of a finding of in the LOD on 25 Nov 09. 

 

On 5 Dec 09, another Informal LOD Determination was initiated to 
evaluate the applicant’s hypersomnia with sleep apnea. The 
initial determination was EPTS – service aggravated; however the 
approval authority overturned this decision in favor of a 
finding of in the LOD on 8 Jan 10. 

 

On 5 Dec 09, the commander denied the applicant’s appeal of his 
reenlistment denial and on 13 Jan 10, he was relieved from his 
assignment and transferred to the Reserve Retired List to await 
retired pay at age 60. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/SGP recommends denial, indicating the applicant’s original 
request for medical hold was appropriately denied in accordance 
with the governing instructions. Despite his assertions to the 
contrary, AFRC/SGP was well aware he had two conditions that 
were disqualifying in accordance with AFI 48-123 and would 
require an MEB if he had not been pending separation. However, 
according to AFI 41-210, Patient Administration Functions, the 
existence of a physical defect or condition does not, in and of 
itself, necessarily provide justification for or entitlement to 
an MEB. The law that provides for military disability is not 
used to bestow additional benefits upon those approaching 
retirement or separation. If a member has performed his duty 
satisfactorily prior to scheduled retirement or an approved 
separation, a presumption of fitness is established. This 
presumption can be overcome if an acute condition, or serious 
deterioration of a previous condition, developed that would 
prevent the member from performing further military duty, were 
he or she not already retiring. His last evaluation on 
12 Jan 10 notes he was fully capable of performing all his job 
requirements. For this reason and the fact that any pending MEB 
or fast track processing would have resulted in a return to duty 
determination, the presumption of fitness was not overcome and 
medical hold was appropriately denied. As for his inability to 
meet fitness standards as a consideration for medical hold, his 
service connected medical condition had no bearing on his 
fitness test, but rather was more affected by his lifestyle 
choices and personal commitment to meeting Air Force fitness 
standards. 

 

A complete copy of the AFRC/SGP evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant provides an expanded statement and copies of his 
point credit summary, as well as correspondence from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, indicating 
there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The presumption 
of fitness may be overcome if evidence shows the existence of an 
acute grave illness or injury, a serious deterioration of a 
chronic condition, or a chronic condition exists and the member 
was clearly not able to perform the duties befitting of his 
office, grade, rank, and rating. The Medical Consultant opines 
that if an individual has completed his or her obligated term of 


service, but has been denied reenlistment due to administrative 
failures instead of a medical disqualification, there must be 
sufficient evidence to warrant alternative processing through 
the Disability Evaluation System (DES). While the inability to 
deploy to all conceivable locations may be considered in a 
fitness determination, it does not constitute an automatic basis 
for an MEB or a subsequent disability separation. The Medical 
Consultant did not find sufficient evidence to show the 
applicant was unable to adequately perform his military duties 
as an administrative specialist nor show that a physical 
disability was the cause for his terminating his career. 

 

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant insists that some of the facts in the AFBCMR 
Medical Consultant evaluation are incorrect and misleading due 
to his last commander not correcting some controversial 
circumstances before his removal from command. Additionally, he 
indicates that he no longer desires reinstatement, but prefers 
that his medical records be thoroughly reviewed and considered 
by an MEB. He deserves this process by virtue of his long 
service. In support of his rebuttal, he provides an expanded 
statement, and a copy of an overview of his military service. 

 

A complete copy of the applicant’s response, with attachment, is 
at Exhibit H. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including his 
response to the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation, in 
judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the 
opinions and recommendations of Air Force office or primary 
responsibility and AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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 for us 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 issues 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-2010-00636 in Executive Session on 16 Nov 10 and 
XX Dec 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/SGP, dated 9 Apr 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Jun 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 6 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Nov 10, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair