RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05065 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His administrative discharge be changed to a medical separation 
or retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. His administrative separation for failure to meet minimum 
fitness standards was unjust. The knee injury he suffered in 
Iraq in 2004 was the cause of his Fitness Assessment (FA) 
failures because it indirectly caused unwanted weight gain. By 
amendment, he was also diagnosed with Obstructive Sleep Apnea 
(OSA) and depression, and the medication he was prescribed 
caused excessive weight gain. 

 

2. His combined disability rating from The Department of 
Veteran Affairs (DVA) of 80 percent warrants a medical 
retirement. In accordance with Title 38, Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), any disability percentage greater than 
30 percent qualifies for a medical retirement. His 
Patellarfemoral Syndrome in his right knee was only rated at 
10 percent by the Air Force, while the DVA rated him at 
60 percent for these conditions alone. 

 

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

 

_________________ ______________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served in the grade of Staff Sergeant (E-5) during 
the period in question. 

 

The applicant’s last five FA results are as follows: 

 

Date 

Composite Score 

Rating 

10 May 11 

52.75 

Unsatisfactory 

5 Jan 11 

27.67 

Unsatisfactory* 




6 Aug 10 

46.60 

Unsatisfactory 

18 Feb 10 

76.25 

Good 

6 Oct 09 

60.60 

Poor 



*Rescored after the applicant failed the AC portion. 

 

In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, 
AF Guidance Memo 2, Paragraph 15, commanders shall make a 
discharge or retention recommendation to the Installation 
Commander when an individual receives four Unsatisfactory FA 
scores in a 24-month period. IAW AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.26.6., Airmen who fail to meet 
minimum standards for fitness for reasons amounting to 
disability may be discharged. 

 

On 7 Jun 11, the applicant’s commander notified him he was 
recommending him for administrative discharge for failure to 
meet minimum fitness standards, and notified him of his right to 
an administrative discharge board, legal counsel, and to submit 
statements in his own behalf. 

 

IAW AFI 36-3208, paragraph 6.35, members who have served more 
than 16, but less than 20 years of creditable active service, 
are entitled to request special consideration for Lengthy 
Service Probation (LSP). 

 

On 6 Jul 11, the applicant waived his right to present his case 
to an administrative discharge board, but requested LSP 
consideration. 

 

On 15 Aug 11, the discharge authority denied the applicant’s 
request for LSP, and directed he be discharged. The case file 
was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient. 

 

On 1 Nov 11, the applicant was Honorably discharged, and issued 
a Narrative Reason for Separation of “Physical Standards,” and 
was credited with 17 years and 6 days of active service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice with respect to the applicant’s 
discharge. The applicant did not submit any evidence or 
identify any errors or injustices which occurred in the 
discharge process. The applicant received counseling on several 
occasions and was afforded ample opportunity to overcome his 
deficiencies. Based on the documentation of file in the master 
personnel records, the discharge, to include the 
characterization of service, was consistent with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and 


was within the discretion of the discharge authority. There was 
no error or injustice in the processing of the discharge action. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant had a critical knee injury, sustained during his 
combat deployment to Iraq in Jul 04, that should be taken into 
account. Although injured, he continued to support the mission 
as both a gunner and driver, climbing in an out of make-shift 
gun boxes in full body armor and ammo weighing approximately 
40 pounds. Upon return from his deployment, the aerobic portion 
of the FA transitioned from cycle ergometry to running. As he 
attempted to get into shape, running was very painful. His 
medical profiles limited his physical ability causing unwanted 
weight gain. Additionally, he was diagnosed with OSA and 
depression. According to The National Library of Medicine, the 
medications he was prescribed, primarily Quetiapine, cause 
“excessive weight gain.” Admittedly, he simply gave up on the 
last two FAs because mentally he could no longer take it. At 
the end of the day, with no leadership support, he could no 
longer perform his duties as a Noncommissioned Officer 
(Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR medical consultant recommends denial indicating there 
was no error or injustice. The applicant does not meet the 
criteria for a medical separation. The applicant contends that 
his knee injury was the cause of his FA failures. The applicant 
underwent a Medical Evaluation Board prior to his separation, 
which found the applicant fit for duty, and worldwide qualified 
to deploy to installations with fixed Medical Treatment 
Facilities (MTFs). 

 

Concerning the applicant’s contention his knee injury ultimately 
caused his FA failures, on 14 Jan 11, an examining physician 
wrote in this records, “the applicant did suffer a medical 
condition that would preclude one from certain aspects of 
exercise to include high impact exercising; however, the 
applicant did not suffer from a medical condition that would 
preclude him from dieting or performing extra conditioning.” 
Unfortunately, the applicant’s FA failures appear centered 
around his waist circumference. The applicant received 
counseling on several occasions and was afforded ample 
opportunity to overcome his deficiencies. There was no error or 
injustice in the processing of the discharge action. 

 

Concerning the applicant’s contention his 80 percent disability 
rating from the DVA qualifies him for a medical retirement, the 


DVA, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), 
with a different purpose, is authorized to offer compensation 
for any medical condition determined service incurred, without 
regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact 
upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, 
narrative reason for separation, or the intervening or 
transpired period since the date of separation. With this in 
mind, Title 38 was written to allow awarding compensation 
ratings for conditions that were not 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 
and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from 
the DVA for service-connected, but militarily non-unfitting 
conditions. 

 

Concerning the applicant’s request for a medical separation, the 
Department of Defense (DoD) Disability Evaluation System can, by 
law, only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases 
or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for 
continued active service and were the cause of career 
termination. The MEB found the applicant fit for duty. The 
applicant did not have a medical condition which would have 
prevented him from reasonably performing the duties of his 
office, grade, rank or rating. The applicant has not met the 
burden of proof of an error or injustice which warrants the 
desired change of the record. 

 

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He submitted a complete copy of his medical records and all 
relevant AF Form 422s and AF Form 469s, and asked that the Board 
note his knee problems began in 2005. In addition, he does not 
know how long he suffered with OSA. This, coupled with his 
administrative procedures, Medical Board, physical therapy, 
mistreatment by his chain of command, and the fact that he 
suffered from severe major depression and was on several 
medications, all contributed to his inability to lose weight and 
pass this FA (Exhibit H). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal responses to the advisory opinions rendered in his 
case, in judging the merits of this case; however, we agree with 
the opinions and recommendations of the AFBCMR Medical 
Consultant and Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) 
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. 
While it is clear the applicant sustained injuries that 
precluded him from participating in all components of the 
fitness assessments, other than his own assertions, he has 
presented no evidence which would lead us to believe that 
competent medical authority should have determined he was exempt 
from the waist measurement component of the failed fitness 
assessments which formed the basis of his administrative 
discharge. While the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) saw 
fit to award the applicant compensation for his service 
connected disabilities, said conditions were not the cause of 
the termination of his military career as he was found fit for 
duty and we do not find the evidence presented sufficient to 
conclude that he should have instead been found unfit. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the relief. 

 

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 issues 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-2012-05065 in Executive Session on 8 Aug 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-05065 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 18 Oct 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 25 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Mar 13. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Apr 13. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Advisory, dated 24 Jun 13. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jul 13. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jul 13, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair