AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00287 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
    
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His reason for discharge be changed from “Completion of Required 
Active Service” to “Medical Retirement.” 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  should  have  received  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  and 
been medically retired. 
 
He  was  sick  for  over  one  year  prior  to  his  discharge  from  the 
Air  Force  and  has  been  rated  100  percent  disabled  by  the 
Department  of  Veteran  Affairs  (DVA)  effective  the  date  of  his 
discharge. 
 
He  recently  discovered  after  talking  to  Senators  and 
Congressional  offices  that  he  should  have  been  medically 
retired.  
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DVA Rating Decision and an extract of his Medical Records. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 5 Mar 1997. 
 
On 21 Feb 2008, he was honorably discharged from Active Duty in 
the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  (TSgt,  E-6).    He  received  a 
Reenty  Code  of  1J,  which  denotes  “Eligible  to  Reenlist-Elected 
Separation  or  Discharge”  and  a  Separation  Program  Designator 
code  of  KBK  which  denotes  “Completion  of  Required  Active 
Service.”    He  served  9  years,  11  months  and  17 days  of  active 
service. 
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained  in  the  letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of 
the Air Force at Exhibit C. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.    Addressing  the 
applicant's  expressed  desire  for  a  medical  retirement,  the 
Medical  Consultant  states  the  military  Disability  Evaluation 
System  (DES),  established to maintain a fit and vital fighting 
force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), 
only  offer  compensation  for  those  service  incurred  diseases  or 
injuries  which  specifically  rendered  a  member  unfit  for 
continued  active  service  and  were  the  cause  for  career  
termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present 
at  the  time  of  separation  and  not  based  on  future  occurrences.  
The  applicant's  career  was  not  terminated  due  to  a  medical 
condition.    An  extract    from  Department  of  Defense  Instruction 
1332.32,  Physical  Disability    Evaluation,  Enclosure  3,  Part  3, 
Standards  for  Determining  Unfitness  Due  to  Physical  Disability  
or  Medical  Disqualification,  paragraph  E3.P3.2.1,  reads:"  A 
Service  member  shall  be  considered  unfit  when  the  evidence 
establishes  that  the  member,  due  to  physical  disability,  is 
unable  to  reasonably  perform the duties  of his or her office, 
grade,  rank,  or  rating  (hereafter  called  duties)  to  include  
duties  during  a  remaining  period  of  Reserve  obligation."  
Indeed,  as  the  applicant  asserts,  he  did  attend  multiple 
episodes of care, which he characterized as being "sick" during 
calendar year (CY) 2006.  However, there is no indication in the 
record that any of the applicant's health providers, his flight 
surgeon,  and  various  consulting  specialists,  ever  entertained 
the prospect of initiating a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and 
medically separating him; although placed on an extended period 
of  duties  not  including  flying  (DNIF)  status  as  a  pararescue 
craftsman. 
 
The Board and the applicant should also be aware that the mere 
evidence  of  one  or  more  medical  conditions  during  military 
service  does  not  automatically  justify  a  medical  basis  for 
discharge.  Specifically, 
Defense 
Instruction  1332.38,  Physical  Disability  Evaluation,  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 duty."   
 
Operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.}, with 
a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation 
for  any  medical  condition  with  an  established  nexus  with 
military  service,  without  regard  to  [and  independent  of]  its 
demonstrated  or  proven  impact  upon  a  service  member's 
retainability,  fitness  to  serve,  or  the  narrative  reason  for 
release  from  military  service.    With  this  in  mind,  Title  38, 
U.S.C.,  which  governs  the  DVA  compensation  system,  was  written 
to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were 
not  proven  unfitting  for  military  service  at  the  time  of 
separation.  This  is  the  reason  why  an  individual  can  be  found 
fit  for  release  from  military    service  for  one  reason  and  yet 

Department 

under 

of 

 

2

ratings 

alone, 

although 

disability 

sometime  thereafter  receive  a  compensation  rating  from  the  DVA 
for  service-connected,  but  militarily  non-unfitting  medical 
conditions. 
 
The  Medical  Consultant  acknowledges,  from  this  paper  review, 
that the medical evidence suggests that an MEB, or a review in 
lieu  of  (RILO)  MEB,  should  have  been  considered,  as  a  minimum, 
for the applicant's Depressive Disorder, NOS, before his release 
from  service.  However,  there  is  significant  competing  evidence 
that  medical  officials,  the  applicant,  and  his  commander  may 
have  been  aware  of  this  option  prior  to  his  release  from 
military service, but elected to proceed with terminal leave and 
completion  of  required  service.    The  Medical  Consultant  is  not 
in  a  position  to  second-guess  the  decisions  made  by  the 
applicant  or  his  healthcare  providers  during  the  waning  months 
of CY 2006, but opines these were likely based collectively upon 
clinical  judgment,  the  applicant's  desires,  his  impending 
terminal  leave,  and  approaching  separation    Thus,  the  supplied 
post-service 
quite 
compelling,  are  insufficient  to  now  justify  a  retroactive 
medical  retirement;  and  are  not  necessarily  proof  of  the 
applicant's  actual  level  of  impairment  for  any  of  his  medical 
conditions at the "snap shot" time of his release from military 
service;  notwithstanding  the  DVA  practice  of  making  disability 
compensation  effective  the  day  after    the  date  of  separation, 
albeit  issued,  in  this  case,  two  years  after  the  applicant's 
date of separation. 
 
The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit 
C. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
A  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the 
applicant on 26 Oct 2012 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 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, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  and  adopt  his  rationale  as  the 
basis  for  our  conclusion  the  applicant  has  not  been  the  victim 

 

3

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. 
 
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  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 29 Nov 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 
 
      
      
      
 
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-00287: 
 
     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 2012, w/atchs. 
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 Oct              
                 2012, w/atch. 
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 26 Oct 2012. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Panel Chair 
 Member 
 Member 

 
Panel Chair 

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

4