RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05553
		        COUNSEL:  VFW
		        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required 
Active Service,” be changed to reflect “Medically Retired Due to 
Physical Disqualification.”

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged from the Air Force Reserve (AFR) due to 
medical conditions he incurred while on active duty.  His 
conditions are now rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA) at 80 percent for increased migraine severity, back pain, 
and depression.

In Jan 01, he injured his back and developed severe migraines 
and extreme back problems.  He was stationed at a remote 
Geographically Separated Unit (GSU) in Northern Germany, and did 
not have regular access to US military health care providers.  

He went to Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, to inquire about a 
physical since his career field was shrinking and he needed to 
retrain to stay in the Air Force.  Based on his medical 
condition he could not retrain into another career field and had 
no other options but to separate.

Not knowing about his options for a medical retirement, and 
having other geographical limitations, he moved forward with his 
release from active duty.

After he separated from active duty, he joined the AFR.  
However, shortly thereafter, he was placed on medical 
waivers/profiles that did not allow him to participate.  The VA 
granted him “service-connected” for his disabilities, however, a 
medical review board (sic) determined that he should be 
discharged for physical disqualification with an honorable 
discharge.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the 
Armed Forces of the United States; DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty; AF Form 100, Request and 
Authorization for Separation; Court Order changing his name, 
current driver’s license and DVA Identification card, letters 
from the DVA, and various military personnel and medical 
records.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 Feb 97, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular 
Air Force.  On 4 Dec 02, he was released from active duty and 
transferred to the AFR.

On 28 Feb 05, he was discharged from the AFR due to physical 
disqualification.

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, 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.  The Medical 
Consultant states that he found no AF Forms 469, Duty Limiting 
Condition Report, or AF Forms 422, Physical Profile Serial 
Report.  The applicant has not supplied medical documentation to 
support or substantiate an unfitting condition for the period of 
time he served on active duty (5 Feb 97 to 4 Dec 04).  The 
Medical Consultant notes the applicant’s arguments regarding his 
inability to see a medical provider based on his being stationed 
in a remote location in Germany, nevertheless, the applicant was 
able to complete his active duty tour without limitations.  The 
applicant states that his career field was “shrinking” and 
upward mobility was restricted, therefore, he voluntarily 
entered the AFR.  

Based upon the supplied service medical evidence, the Medical 
Consultant found no medical condition that established, [or 
should have], a cause and effect relationship with the 
termination of the applicant’s service or as an alternative 
reason for his release from active military service.  The 
applicant has not shown a medical condition that would have 
interfered with his military service to the extent or duration 
that warranted placement on medical hold for a Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB) and processing through the military 
Disability Evaluation System (DES).  

The military DES, established to maintain a fit and vital 
fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United State 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 only for the degree of impairment present at 
the time of separation and not based on future occurrences.  
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.”

It could not be established that the applicant was unable to 
reasonably perform his military duties and as such the Medical 
Consultant opines that the applicant has not meet the threshold 
for Medical Disability Retirement.

Under Title 38, the DVA 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.  Title 38, which 
governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow 
awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not 
unfitting during military service or 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.  The DVA is 
also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the 
purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or 
decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service 
connect medical condition may vary (improve or worsen, effecting 
future employability) over the lifetime of the veteran.  

The Medical Consultant is sensitive to the member’s potential 
need for continuing medical care.  Therefore, the member is 
encouraged to utilize the resources of the DVA.

The Medical Consultant notes the applicant’s case has not been 
timely filed and opines he has not met the burden of proof of an 
error or injustice that warrants the desired change of record.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He explained that he injured his back in 2001 and subsequently 
developed extreme and often debilitating migraines.  However, 
there was no mention or disclosure to the Air Force Board of his 
justification for the request, of which was in part due to his 
back injury and severe migraines which were incurred while on 
active duty, and were resulting factors for why he was 
ultimately discharged from the AFR.

After his discharge from active duty, he was diagnosed by the 
DVA as having cyclothmia and agoraphobia, both of which were a 
direct result of the conditions under which he lived while 
stationed at a remote GSU in Germany, with a very small 
population of U.S. personnel.  

He would like the Board to consider the following:

1.  Had he not been stationed at a remote GSU while on active 
duty, contending with the issues noted herein, it is reasonable 
to accept that he would not have developed cyclothymia and 
agoraphobia, two very debilitating conditions, which in part led 
to him being medically discharged and unable to continue serving 
in the AFR.  He also may not have hurt his back and developed 
migraines, two other conditions that resulted in his medical 
discharge from the AFR.

2.  Had he stayed on active duty after developing his medical 
conditions, it is plausible that he would later have been found 
medically disqualified.

3.  Had he not been stationed at a remote GSU, where regular 
U.S. medical treatment was not as accessible, he may have been 
informed of his options for completing or requesting such 
medical documentations such as AF Forms 469 and AF Forms 422.

4.  It is the simple bureaucracies that dictate, by not having 
completed a particular AF Form means he is ineligible for a 
correction of his original discharge.  He believes that he has 
enough medical documentation to substantiate his request for a 
medical discharge. 

5.  The Board should consider the circumstances, the time in 
which he served, the remote location in which he served, his 
physical injuries, and subsequent diagnosis from serving in that 
very location and under those conditions, would have impacted 
his ability to continue on active duty.  His only option was to 
leave active duty.  Had he been afforded an MEB while on active 
duty, it is plausible he would have been medically discharged.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________
_

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 to include his rebuttal 
statement, 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  As indicated by the BCMR Medical 
Consultant, there was no AF Forms 469 or AF Forms 422, within 
the supplied medical documentation that would support or 
substantiate an unfitting condition for the period he served on 
active duty.  The military DES can only offer compensation for 
those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically 
render a member unfit for continued active service and were the 
cause for career termination; and only for the degree of 
impairment present at the time of separation and not based on 
future occurrences.  It could not be established by the evidence 
provided that the applicant was unable to perform his military 
duties at the time of his release from active duty.  His DD Form 
214 indicates that he was released from active duty due to 
completion of required term of service.  Therefore, it is our 
opinion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of 
proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  In 
view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________
_

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 Docket Number    
BC-2012-05553 in Executive Session on 26 Sep 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2012-05553 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 25 Mar 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Apr 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Apr 13.




								
				Panel Chair