RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04187 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His discharge (honorable) should be changed to a medical 
retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He should have received a medical retirement, since he was not 
allowed to re-enlist due to medical problems. He was told that 
he was "not fit to travel worldwide and advised to contact the 
VA," (Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)). While he notes 
that he was not allowed to reenlist as a result of turning down 
a three-year assignment to Panama, he should have been informed 
of his rights to receive a medical retirement. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Report of Transfer or Discharge, issued in 
conjunction with his 23 Feb 73 separation. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

After serving over three years, the applicant reenlisted in the 
Regular Air Force, on 25 Feb 69, for a period of four years. He 
was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant 
(SSgt/E-5), with an effective date and Date of Rank (DOR) of 
1 Jul 69. He was credited with seven years and five months of 
total active service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, stating, in part, 
that the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error 
or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. 

 

He notes that based upon the limited available medical 
documentation, he is of the opinion that the applicant indeed 
had a medical condition (Asthma) that was listed as potentially 


disqualifying for continued service. However, despite this 
diagnosis the applicant carried a physical profile reflecting 
that his medical condition did not interfere with his worldwide 
qualification and ability to perform his military duties. It 
appears that either in late 1971 or very early 1972, a decision 
was made to assign a P-4 profile (non-worldwide qualified) with 
subsequent MEB processing. Following a review of the 
applicant's case by senior medical officials, the profile 
restriction was lifted and changed back to a P-2; indicating 
that the applicant was retained on duty to complete his term of 
enlistment. Under today's standards he would have likely been 
reassigned a P-3 profile. The Consultant has not been provided 
factual evidence of other possible reasons the applicant was 
allegedly denied re-enlistment; however, this falls within the 
prerogative of the commanding officer. Additionally, while the 
applicant was able to complete his term of enlistment under 
retention standards, in order to qualify for reenlistment the 
Consultant opines he would have been required to meet the more 
stringent accession standards. Certainly, the applicant's 
performance reports are reflective of his capability to perform 
the mission. The Military Disability Evaluation System, 
operating under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) is charged 
with maintaining a fit and vital fighting force and, by law, can 
only offer compensation for disease(s) or illness (es) which 
cause career termination. In the case under review, it is 
apparent that the applicant was allowed to complete his 
contractual term of enlistment, despite his medical condition. 
The Air Force then allegedly disallowed his re-entry for medical 
reasons. While this may seem a bit disingenuous, it is 
consistent with established policies. The applicant's attention 
is directed to an extract from Department of Defense Instruction 
6130.03, Medical Standards for Enlistment, Induction, or 
Appointment in the Military Services, addressing conditions 
disqualifying for service entry (or re-entry); specifically 
under disorders of the Lung, Chest Wall, Pleura, and 
Mediastinum, paragraph d, which reads: "Airway hyper 
responsiveness including asthma (493.xx), reactive airway 
disease, exercise-induced bronchospasm (519.11) or asthmatic 
bronchitis (493.90), reliably diagnosed and symptomatic after 
the 13th birthday" is disqualifying for service entry. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 22 Jul 11 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(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, the applicant’s case has undergone an 
exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical Consultant and we did not 
find the evidence provided, sufficient to overcome his 
assessment of the case. The applicant points to the service-
connection determination and makes the point that he was told to 
seek assistance from the DVA to support his claim. In this 
respect, we note, the Military Disability Evaluation System 
(MDES) only offers compensation for the medical condition that 
is the cause for career termination; and then only to the degree 
of impairment present at the time of final disposition or 
military separation. Conversely, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) operates under a separate set of laws which takes 
into account the fact that a person can acquire physical 
conditions during military service that, although not unfitting 
at the time of separation, may later progress in severity and 
alter the individual's lifestyle and future employability. 
Thus, the two systems represent a continuum of medical care and 
disability compensation that starts with entry on to active duty 
and extends for the life of the veteran. Therefore, we agree 
with the recommendation and adopt the rationale expressed as the 
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain 
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. 
In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-04187 in Executive Session on 23 August 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 8 Jul 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Jul 11. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair