RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 


IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01208 

COUNSEL: NONE 

HEARING DESIRED: NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His discharge under other than Chapter 61, Title 10, USC be 
reviewed for a disability retirement. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He has attempted to file a claim for years with the Army andthe Adjutant General of Ohio. 

He was advised by legal counsel that he had to file his claimwith the Army since his disabilities were caused while heserved in the Army. The Army Board for Correction of MilitaryRecords (ABCMR) said that he had to file with the Air ForceBoard of Correction for Military Records (AFBCMR). 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of hisDD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from ActiveDuty; NGB Forms 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service;
AF IMT 618, Medical Board Report; AF IMTs 348, Line of DutyDetermination, an extract from his medical records, and 
numerous other documents in support of his requests. 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant's DD Form 214 reflects he served in the Army from7 Apr 1993 through 28 Feb 2006. He was discharged under theauthority of Army Regulation 635-200, Active Duty EnlistedAdministrative Separations, by reason of Completion of RequiredActive Service. 

He served in the Ohio Air National Guard from 6 Apr2007 through 23 Aug 2010. He was discharged under the 
authority of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Proceduresfor Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, by reasonof “Physical Disqualification.” 


The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application arecontained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices ofthe Air Force at Exhibits C and D. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

AFPC/DPPD recommends approval. DPPD advises the Board to rule 
that on 23 Aug 2010 the applicant was separated from the AirNational Guard and effective 24 Aug 2010 he was permanentlydisability retired with a 60 percent disability rating vicebeing discharged under other than Chapter 61, Title 10, USCExisted Prior to Service (EPTS). 

The medical narrative included in the medical board packagenotes "that in late 2005 while in Iraq he was involved in aChinook helicopter crash in which the aircraft ran out of fueland auto-rotated to a hard landing. He remembers hearing theengines shutoff and then waking up about 200 meters away afterlosing consciousness for an unknown period of time. Uponreturn from Iraq in 2005 he spoke with a psychiatrist for apost-deployment screening. Following that encounter he reportshaving scheduled three or four visits with a mental healthprovider at Fort Wainwright and having each one cancelled. He 
became frustrated with the cancellations, and then separated 
from the Army." He currently has a 60 percent serviceconnected rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). 

The complete DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the 
applicant's implicit contention to supplant his 
administrative discharge from the Air National Guard with a 
medical retirement. 

The Medical Consultant states comments in the Line of Duty(LOD) documents suggest the applicant may not have disclosedthe full extent of his medical ailments in conjunction with hisapplication to enter the Air National Guard; thus, he waspresumed fit at entrance. Nevertheless, the fact that serviceconnection was likely established by the DVA based upon theapplicant's prior Army service history and not his Air Forceservice appears counter-intuitive and, thus, warrants 
explanation; bearing in mind his acceptance in the Air NationalGuard represented a new period of service requiring fulfillmentof military accession medical standards. This also requiresfull disclosure of any pre-existing medical conditions thatcould interfere with military service; which would otherwise 
constitute fraudulent entry. 

Perhaps none of his conditions were disqualifying or of adegree of severity that warranted disability processing at thetime of the applicant's release from the Army; even though 

2 



there may have been signs and symptoms of the same to some 
degree at the time of separation. No service medical 
documentation from the his Army service is supplied in order tomake an independent assessment of the appropriateness or 
inappropriateness of his release from the Army due to 
completion of required active service; versus mandating aMedical Hold and review by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). 

Finally, the Consultant refers the reader to AFI 36-2910, Line 
of Duty Determination, paragraph 3.4.1.2.3, and the Eight YearRule. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. Section 1207a, which reads:
"A disabling condition will be found to be in the LOD, eventhough the condition existed prior to service (EPTS), if the 
member has at least eight years of active service and the 
member was on active duty orders specifying a period of morethan 30 days at the time the condition became unfitting, assubsequently determined by the PEB. Supplied evidence showsthat the applicant was not on active duty orders specifying aperiod of more than 30 days at the time his condition(s) becamedisqualifying. No other competing evidence is supplied toreflect the applicant's medical conditions first began duringhis Guard service or were permanently aggravated by his Guardservice. 

The Medical Consultant does not wish to deny the applicantbenefits which he may deserve, particularly in the context ofthe favorable recommendation by DPPD. However, the burden ofproof has not been met to warrant the desired change of therecord. 

The complete BCMR Medical evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

From the beginning, he told his Air National Guard recruiterthat he filed a disability claim with the DVA. Once he 
received his disability rating from the DVA, he informed hissupervisor and told her that he did not believe that he shouldremain in the Air National Guard. These disabilities would 
have been apparent had they reviewed his medical records. 

He was never sent to the medical facility until a week beforehe was supposed to go to advanced individual training. The 
flight surgeon said that he was not qualified to attend Unit 
Training Assembly (UTA) and he was not deployable. Until that 
point, he never missed a UTA. He asserts that the DVA onlygrants service connected disability based on medical evidenceincluded in his medical records. He currently has a 70 percentdisability rating from the DVA. 

He has attempted to file a claim for numerous years. He 
provided the necessary documentation to the ABCMR. The ABCMR 

3 



advised him that he had to submit an application with theAFBCMR. When he submitted his request with the AFBCMR, he wastold the ABCMR should consider his case. After years of goingback and forth between these two agencies and no one willing tohear his request he asked his congressman to intervene on his 
behalf. 

Two weeks after his return from deployment in Iraq (Dec 2004) 
his Army unit was deactivated. He was simultaneously preparingto separate from the Army and since he was not attached to anyunit he was given out-processing paperwork and was told to takecare of out-processing on his own. He received his orders and 
was only given 30 days to out-process. Because of the urgencyhe did not receive a proper separation physical. 

After numerous years of attempts in getting his case heard, hewould like to thank the Board for considering his case. He 
gave everything he had physically and mentally to the serviceof our country and did so bringing great respect to the unitshe served. He and his family are saddened by the uncertaintyof his situation and it goes against everything about themilitary service and taking care of their own. 

In further support of his appeal, the applicant providesduplicate copies of documents included in his originalsubmission. 

His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. 

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 theinterest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The 
applicant is requesting his records be corrected in a form ormanner that would qualify him for a disability retirement.
While we note DPPD’s recommendation to approve his request, webelieve the BCMR Medical Consultant provides a more reasonableanalysis of the case. The applicant’s comments in response tothe BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation are noted; however,
considered alone, we do not find his assertions sufficientlypersuasive. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt hisrationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant hasfailed to sustain his burden that he has been the victim of an 
error or injustice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to 
4 



the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the reliefsought in this application. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did notdemonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; thatthe application was denied without a personal appearance; andthat the application will only be reconsidered upon the 
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not consideredwith this application. 

The following members of the Board considered this applicationin Executive Session on 5 Feb 2013, under the provisions of AFI36-2603: 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 


The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC2012-
01208: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 May 2011, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 29 May 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 21 Nov

2012. 
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 21 Nov 2012.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. 


 Panel Chair 

5