RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03096 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANTREQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His narrative reason for separation of “Physical Standards” 
and the corresponding Separation Program Designator (SPD) code 
of “HFT” be changed. 

 

2. His Reentry (RE) code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with 
an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without 
characterization of service) be changed. 

 

3. Any Letters of Reprimand (LORs) related to his fitness 
assessment (FA) failures be removed. 

 

4. He be medically retired. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANTCONTENDS THAT: 

 

His medical condition of “Acromegaly” was the cause of his 
fitness assessment failures. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides extracts from 
his military personnel/ medical records, and other supporting 
documents. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant's commander notified him on 15 Jul 08 that he was 
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for 
Unsatisfactory Performance. During Apr 06 to May 08, the 
applicant failed to make satisfactory progress in the fitness 
program: 

 


(1) On 11 Apr 06, the applicant failed to make satisfactory 
progress in the fitness program. The minimum passing score was 
70 percent and he scored 60 percent, resulting in a "poor" 
fitness determination. 

 

(2) On 5 Jul 06, the applicant failed to make satisfactory 
progress in the fitness program. The minimum passing score was 
70 percent and he scored 30 percent, resulting in a "poor" 
fitness determination. 

 

(3) On 18 Dec 06, the applicant failed to make satisfactory 
progress in the fitness program. The minimum passing score was 
70 percent and he scored 30 percent, resulting in a "poor" 
fitness determination. 

 

(4) On 21 Mar 07, the applicant failed to make satisfactory 
progress in the fitness program. The minimum passing score was 
70 percent and he scored 40 percent, resulting in a "poor" 
fitness determination. 

 

(5) On 27 Jun 07, the applicant failed to make satisfactory 
progress in the fitness program. The minimum passing score was 
70 percent and he scored 50.9 percent, resulting in a "poor" 
fitness determination. 

 

(6) On 5 Oct 07, the applicant failed to make satisfactory 
progress in the fitness program. The minimum passing score was 
75 percent and he scored 40.65 percent, resulting in a "poor" 
fitness determination. 

 

(7) On 22 Jan 08, the applicant failed to make satisfactory 
progress in the fitness program. The minimum passing score was 
75 percent and he scored 57.20 percent, resulting in a "poor" 
fitness determination. 

 

(8) On 20 Mar 08, the applicant failed to make satisfactory 
progress in the fitness program. The minimum passing score was 
75 percent and he scored 74.88 percent, resulting in a "poor" 
fitness determination. 

 

(9) On 30 May 08, the applicant failed to make satisfactory 
progress in the fitness program. The minimum passing score was 
75 percent and he scored 73.50 percent, resulting in a "poor" 
fitness determination. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge and was afforded the opportunity to consult with 
counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. 

 

The discharge authority approved the separation and directed an 
honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 

 

The applicant was honorably discharged, on 19 Sep 08, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 


paragraph 5-26.1, with a narrative reason for separation of 
Unsatisfactory Performance (Failure to Meet Minimum Fitness 
Standards), with an RE code of 2C. He was credited with 
11 years and 10 days of active duty service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of his request to change his 
narrative reason for separation. They found no evidence of an 
error or injustice in the processing of the discharge action, 
nor did the applicant submit any such evidence. Based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge to include the narrative reasons for discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. 

 

AFI 36-3208, Para 5.26 provides that Airmen who fail to meet 
minimum standards of fitness for reasons not amounting to 
disability may be discharged. Paragraph 8.2.6 of AFI 10-248 
requires commander to make a discharge/retain recommendation for 
members who have either failed four fitness assessments (FAs) 
within 24 months or have a FA score in the "poor" category for a 
continuous 12 month period. The applicant failed to meet the 
minimum fitness standards nine times in the past 48 consecutive 
months. He was made aware of the standards, counseled about the 
deficiencies, and given ample opportunity to overcome them. 

 

The applicant has asked to consider medical conditions he claims 
have hampered his performance on FAs. His records indicate he 
has been on medical profile at various times during the past two 
years. Several of his FAs were modified in keeping with AFI 10-
248 to prevent the medical conditions from unjustly lowering his 
score. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of a change to the applicant’s RE 
code of 2C, stating, in part, the RE code 2C is the appropriate 
RE code. His RE code 2C is required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, chapter 3, based on his involuntary 
discharge with a honorable character of service. The applicant 
does not provide proof of an error or injustice in reference to 
his RE code. On 1 Dec 2011, AFPC/DPSOS validated the 
applicant's discharge processing and highlighted his nine 
fitness failures over a two year period. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial of the removal of the LORs, 
stating, in part, the commander acted within his authority when 


deciding to issue/establish an LOR/UIF. Also, the applicant's 
failure to meet fitness standards administered on 11 Apr 06, 5 
Jul 06, 18 Dec 06, 21 Mar 07, 27 Jun 07, 5 Oct 07, 22 Jan 08, 20 
Mar 08 and 30 May 08 does not coincide with a medical condition. 
He was tested on components documented on medical profiles (AF 
IMT 422) in accordance with Air Force policy. 

 

The applicant was issued a LOR on 5 Mar 08 for failure to comply 
with mandatory documentation and a Commander directed 
appointment during a certain timeframe. The LOR was drafted but 
never signed, by the commander or the member. The member 
acknowledged receipt on 5 Mar 08. The rebuttal was submitted on 
7 Mar 08 and the commander made the final decision to uphold the 
LOR. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSIMC evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends granting the applicant 
relief by changing the record to reflect that he was placed on 
the TDRL with a 30 percent disability rating, effective 
19 Sep 08, and that he receive a re-evaluation by a military 
endocrinologist within 90 days, to determine existence of any 
residual sequelae of his primary diagnosis of Acromegaly. This 
should be followed by a re-evaluation of his fitness to serve by 
the Informal Physical Evaluation Board, with eligibility for 
subsequent appellate reviews as authorized. 

 

The Medical Consultant has reviewed the applicant's case in 
consideration of whether he received substandard care, whether a 
physical impairment, such as an undiagnosed Acromegaly, was a 
direct cause of his poor fitness scores, and whether his chronic 
lumbar pain, and the exemption of significant portions of his 
fitness assessments, further prevented him from attaining an 
appropriate level of fitness. The Consultant could not readily 
separate the applicant's poor fitness from his existing medical 
conditions, whether under the unifying diagnosis of Acromegaly, 
as proposed by an endocrinologist, or through other individual 
clinical entities, e.g., chronic/recurrent lumbar pain and new 
onset left lower extremity radicular symptoms; noting the 
exacerbation of these, as well as his depressed mood, after 
being returned to duty by the IPEB for Obstructive Sleep Apnea. 

 

The Medical Consultant noted the applicant's motivation for 
retention in an alternative career field and that the profile 
restrictions imposed due to back pain and depressed mood, 
indicated consistent improvement up to the point of the decision 
by the IPEB, notwithstanding the "P4" profile of 2007, likely 
assigned for Obstructive Sleep Apnea. The Medical Consultant 
acknowledges the applicant's many allegations, some of which 
impugn the quality or thoroughness of his medical care and the 
character of his organizational leadership which, in the opinion 
of the Consultant, can only be substantiated in a Court of Law 
or via Inspector General, or like, investigation. It is also 
only through 20/20 hindsight, with the benefit of a temporal 


(over a several-year period) series of photographs (of poor copy 
quality) showing a progressive change in the applicant's body 
habitués, followed by the discovery of a pituitary tumor on MRI 
scan approximately two years after discharge, and the medical 
opinion of a civilian endocrinologist that we find ourselves 
confronted with a retrospective determination of whether there 
has been an error or injustice in his discharge. He and his 
endocrinologist would have the Board establish a direct causal 
and mitigating relationship between the fitness failures and 
Acromegaly; albeit diagnosed nearly two years post-service. If 
accepting the endocrinologist's view that Acromegaly was the 
established medical reason for the applicant's fitness failures, 
he might have been issued a waiver for continued service or may 
have been processed through the Disability Evaluation System 
(DES), noting that AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and 
Standards, Chapter 5, Continued Military Service (Retention 
Standards), lists Acromegaly among conditions potentially 
disqualifying for continued service. However, the service 
evidence does not readily reflect that Acromegaly itself 
interfered with the applicant's ability to perform the primary 
military duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating; the basis 
upon which fitness or unfitness would be determined. Thus, it 
is conceivable that even if diagnosed with Acromegaly, the 
applicant may have been returned to duty by a Physical 
Evaluation Board (PEB), based upon the service clinical evidence 
of record present at the time. Furthermore, if increased 
abdominal girth was considered a predominant clinical by-product 
of the applicant's cryptic Acromegaly and the cause of his poor 
fitness scores, this factor alone [which is not considered a 
disability] also would not trigger initiating a medical 
separation. Nevertheless, the Consultant opines the applicant's 
command followed established guidelines for managing the fitness 
program, giving the applicant the opportunity to meet standards 
prior to initiating a separation action. 

 

With respect to the applicant's health care, given the cryptic 
nature of Acromegaly, which "often remains undetectable for up 
to 10 years," the Medical Consultant found no significant 
variance from the standard of care, short of introducing an 
unprecedented practice of screening all individuals for growth 
hormone and possibly a brain MRI scan for those who cannot pass 
their fitness test. The written opinion of the applicant's 
endocrinologist persuades the Medical Consultant that there has 
been a possible injustice to apply an administrative reason for 
release from military service, where a medical condition has 
been implicated as the underlying or a significant contributory 
cause of fitness failures. Thus, the Medical Consultant 
struggles with an appropriate remedy, if any, in the applicant's 
case. A retrospective analysis of any given medical case risks 
introduction of a different set of suggested conclusions; 
particularly when there were alternative choices of actions 
taken, or not known, at the time of the alleged errant decision-
making. Thus, the Medical Consultant opines a plausible and 
defensible course of action would be to find the applicant 


physically unfit for military service, place him on the 
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), with assignment of the 
minimum disability rating of 30 percent for Acromegaly [which is 
paid at the 50 percent level while in TDRL status], and to 
direct a timely re-evaluation by a board-certified 
endocrinologist for evaluation of any residual clinical sequelae 
that can be attributed to his primary diagnosis. This action 
places the applicant back within the military Disability 
Evaluation System. However, it should be known that placement 
in TDRL status, by statute, cannot exceed 5 years. The 
applicant's clock would have started on 19 Sep 08. The 
applicant's Obstructive Sleep Apnea, depression and chronic 
lumbar pain should also be acknowledged [on the AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation 
Board], but designated as not unfitting at the time of release 
from active military service. Any administrative adverse 
actions related to the applicant's fitness failures should be 
removed from the record, to include the referral Enlisted 
Performance Report. 

 

Addressing the applicant's desire for change in RE-code, 
presumably to allow his future return to military service, the 
Board is referred to the following extract from Department of 
Defense Instruction 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, 
Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services, which lists 
medical conditions that are disqualifying for service entry. A 
policy statement under the subject of Endocrine and Metabolic 
Conditions, reads: "Current or history of Acromegaly, including 
but not limited to gigantism (253.0), or other disorders of 
pituitary function (253)" [is disqualifying]." 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation, with 
attachment, is at Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 18 Apr 12 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit G). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting 
partial corrective action. Notwithstanding the recommendations 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, we are 
inclined to agree with the analysis of the BCMR Medical 
Consultant who finds that there may have been a possible 
injustice to the applicant by applying an administrative reason 
for release from military service where a medical condition has 
been implicated as the underlying or a significant contributory 
cause of fitness failures. As alluded to by the BCMR Medical 
Consultant, taking a retrospective look at a case can pose 
certain risks by introducing a different set of suggested 
conclusions. However, the thorough analysis of the BCMR Medical 
Consultant has raised doubt as to whether the applicant had an 
undiagnosed unfitting condition at the time of his discharge. 
As such, we agree with the Medical Consultant’s recommendation 
to place the applicant on the TDRL at the minimum disability 
rating of 30 percent with a timely evaluation by a board 
certified Endocrinologist. We believe this approach presents 
the best option for a correct, yet fair and equitable 
determination in the applicant’s case. We note that since the 
applicant will be placed on the TDRL retroactive to his date of 
separation, 19 Sep 08, a final evaluation and decision must be 
completed no later than 18 Sep 13. Therefore, in the interest 
of justice, we recommend the applicant’s record be corrected as 
indicated below. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to THE APPLICANT be corrected to show that: 

 

 a. On 18 September 2008, he was found unfit to perform the 
duties of his office, rank, grade, or rating by reason of 
physical disability, incurred while he was entitled to receive 
basic pay; that the diagnosis in his case was Acromegaly, VASRD 
code 7908, rated at 30 percent; that the total compensable 
percentage was 30 percent; that the degree of impairment was 
temporary; that the disability was not due to intentional 
misconduct or willful neglect; that the disability was not 
incurred during a period of unauthorized absence; and that the 
disability was not received in the line of duty as a direct 
result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war. 

 

 b. On 18 September 2008, all unfavorable information 
associated with his fitness assessment, be, declared void and 
removed from his records. 

 

 c. His AF IMT 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru 
TSgt), rendered for the period 24 February 2007 to 1 October 
2007, be declared void and removed from his records. 

 


 d. He was not discharged from active duty on 
19 September 2008, but on that same date his name was placed on 
the Temporary Disability Retired List. 

 

 e. He be evaluated by a military endocrinologist within 
90 days, after corrective action by the Air Force, to determine 
existence of any residual sequelae of his primary diagnosis of 
Acromegaly and a follow-up re-evaluation of his fitness to serve 
by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board, with eligibility for 
subsequent appellate reviews as authorized. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-03096 in Executive Session on 12 June 12, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-03096 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Sep 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 1 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 Jan 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 15 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 17 Apr 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Apr 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair