DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, DC
Office of the Assistant Secretary
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
XXXXX
HEARING DESIRED: NO
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04247
COUNSEL: NONE
IN THE MATTER OF:
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The narrative reason for his separation be changed to either a
medical separation or medical retirement.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was denied reenlistment due to his medical condition, i.e.,
lower back pain, which was sustained while on active duty during
a deployment and was told that he was not fit to fight.
Despite the fact that two separate Medical Evaluation Boards
(MEBs) recommended that he be returned to duty he was not
allowed to reenlist.
He was unaware of an error or an injustice in his records until
he received a 2011 email, indicating that veterans discharged
between 11 September 2001 and 31 December 2009, could possibly
be entitled to a medical retirement.
In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a copy of his DD
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty
and a Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 3 August
2001, indicating his entitlement to compensation for a service-
connected disability rating at 10 percent.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former Regular Air Force enlisted member, who
served on active duty from 10 March 1999 through 14 May 2008.
On 3 September 2003, he injured his lower back while loading a
cargo pallet during a deployment.
In 2005, he met an MEB, as a result of low back pain which
prevented him from departing on a Permanent Change of Station
(PCS) assignment. He was found fit for duty, worldwide
qualified and was returned to duty, so that he could complete
the PCS.
While overseas, on 28 June 2005, he was identified as requiring
another MEB based on the condition of his back and the MEB
recommended that he meet an IPEB. On 27 November 2006, an IPEB
found him fit for duty and returned to duty, with an assignment
limitation code limiting his worldwide availability.
On 29 May 2007, he underwent surgery to excise his left
lumbosacral disc prolapsed, along with a thorough neurolysis of
his left S1 root.
On 14 May 2008, he was honorably discharge for completion of
required active service and issued a Reentry (RE) code of 4K
(Medically disqualified for continued service or pending
evaluation by MEB/PEB.)
A 14 July 2008 DVA rating decision indicates that effective
15 May 2008, the applicant was awarded service connection for a
herniated intervertebral disc with status post-operative
excision of disc, with a rating of 10 percent.
________________________________________________________________
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 an error to warrant correcting the
RE code assigned at the time of his separation to reflect “3K,”
which is reserved for use by either AFPC or this Board when no
other RE Code applies or is appropriate. Although the applicant
has not requested correction of his RE code, we note that since
he was found fit for duty and was in fact returned to duty, it
is incorrect and does not properly identify the circumstances
surrounding his separation. In this respect, we note that at
the time of his separation, he was no longer medically
disqualified for continued service or pending evaluation by
either an MEB or PEB. Therefore, we recommend his records be
corrected to the extent indicated below.
4. Notwithstanding the above, insufficient relevant evidence
has been presented to warrant favorable consideration of the
applicant’s request to change the narrative reason for his
separation to reflect that he was separated due to a medical
condition. As indicated above, although he was twice processed
through the Disability Evaluation System (DES), each time he was
returned to duty and should not have received an RE code of “4K”
at the time of his separation. Further, in regard to his
contention that he was told that he was not fit to fight, the
evidence of record suggests that if in fact he was told this, it
was in reference to his physical fitness, as the IPEB noted
their fit for duty finding did not constitute or support a
fitness waiver and reminded the applicant and his commander of
the requirements of the Fitness Program. While the applicant
contends that he was denied an opportunity to reenlist due to
his medical condition, he provides no evidence to support this
contention. However, should he provide evidence to support this
contention, we would be willing to entertain his request for
reconsideration at that time. However, based on the evidence
before us, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable
consideration of his request to change the narrative reason for
his separation.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the
time of his honorable discharge on 14 May 2008, he was issued a
reentry code of “3K.”
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2011-04247 in Executive Session on 28 August 2012,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
XXXX, Panel Chair
XXXX, Member
XXXX, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Oct 2011, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
XXXX
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00782
On 20 March 2006, the applicant concurred with the IPEB findings and indicated he had no desire to reenlist in the Air Force Reserve or in the Regular Air Force. Other than his own assertions, the evidence of record appears to indicate the applicant was afforded due process through the disability evaluation system and we find the evidence submitted insufficient to determine otherwise. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00407
His medical condition at the time of his discharge has been completely resolved. Five months following surgical treatment, he reported a return of pain to its pre- operative severity level; with particular difficulty climbing stairs, with no pain when at rest. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01985
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a 21-page brief from counsel, with attachments; copies of NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, issued in conjunction with her 21 Feb 11 transfer to the Retired Reserve; DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with her 23 Feb 11 release from active duty; Reserve Order EK-2605, retirement order, dated 16 Feb 11, and various other documents associated with her request. It...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01911
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) Special Review Panel (SRP) recommends that there be no change of the applicants disability and separation determination as it relates to his diagnosed PTSD. This is the reason why an individual can be found unfit for military service for one or more medical conditions, under Title 10, and yet sometime thereafter receive compensation ratings from the DVA for additional medical conditions that were service-connected, but not...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00187
However, applicant’s medical condition was considered restricting and required an Assignment Limitation Code C. Applicant was not mobility qualified. The evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPAMM indicates that the applicant has had chronic leg pain since basic training. It is fair to note that at the time of her separation, there were no limitations on her assignability by the Medical Standards Branch.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01157
On 18 May 2011, NGB/A1PS found the applicant medically disqualified for worldwide duty for sleep apnea and requested a fitness evaluation. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/SGPA recommends denial of the applicants request for a medical retirement. Furthermore, the applicant was diagnosed with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome in 2010 by the DVA but there is no documentation to support any service connected aggravation.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04059
On 19 August 2008, the IPEB found the applicant fit and recommended Return to Duty, finding the medical condition "does not prevent you from reasonably performing the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating." Therefore, the Medical Consultant concludes the applicant's MS was not a medically unfitting condition at the time of separation and proper administrative procedures followed for determining fitness for duty. Exhibit G. Letter, Counsel, dated 26 May 2014.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02438
He receive service credit for the period following his medical retirement to the date of his return to active duty. The evidence of record indicates that he was medically qualified for continued active service at the time he was processed for an MEB. Had he known of the errors and injustices at the time of the MEB, he would not have agreed to the FPEB recommendation of medical retirement.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01659
The Boards may rate any condition they find that renders the service member unfit for service. Further, it must be noted the Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the members condition at the time of evaluation; in essence, a snapshot of their condition at that time. On 25 April 2007, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found the applicant unfit for further military service due to chronic low back pain, with disc extrusion of L4-5 and L5-S1, and recommended...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00489
However, the military Services, by law, can only rate and compensate for those conditions that were found unfitting for continued military service based on the severity of the condition at the time of separation and not based on possible future changes. The PEB found the back condition unfitting and rated the back condition 20% (coded 5243, intervertebral disc syndrome) using the general rating formula for diseases and injuries of the spine that was consistent with MEB NARSUM range of...