RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00333

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reentry (RE) code of 2Q (medically retired or discharged) be changed to allow him to reenter into the Air Force.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  His mental health issues and gall bladder surgery complications were the cause of his early separation.  These conditions should not have been considered as life-long disabilities or have prevented him from fulfilling his obligations of military service.  

2.  His conditions are not unfitting; he is fit to serve and irrespective of the Air Force’s erroneous findings, his record should be corrected to allow him to re-enlist.  His only documented mental issue should be his diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which he received at the age of six.  Also, he spent 28 months in a residential treatment facility for domestic troubles he experienced as a youth and he is no longer that person.  

3.  He found similar Record of Proceedings (97-02661, 99-00977, 00-02965, 02-02099, 03-01027, BC-2005-00345) with circumstances that are significantly close enough to be considered relevant to his request and should be factored into the decision for recommending approval of his case.  

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate that he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 Sep 09.  

On 7 Oct 09 through 9 Oct 09, the applicant was seen daily in the emergency department of Wilford Hall Medical Center.  During the period of Oct 09 through Nov 09, the applicant was evaluated by multiple specialists.  He was stabilized on medication for his nausea and gastric delay, so he attempted to finish basic military training (BMT).  

In early Dec 09, the applicant had a viral respiratory illness and he requested to be placed on medical hold.  There were repeated discrepancies in his reported medical history to health care providers.  Therefore, he was referred to the Behavioral Analysis Squadron (BAS) for evaluation and his civilian medical records were requested due to his vague medical history and his complaints of pain.  

On 18 Dec 09, the applicant was called to the 319th patient care co-ordination center and confronted on multiple medical issues not disclosed to the military entrance processing station (MEPS).  

On 12 Jan 10, the applicant was referred to the urology department for abdominal pain flare up.  No abnormality was shown and a recommendation was made for a repeat evaluation by the applicant’s civilian providers.  Also, his medical records on inpatient therapy were forwarded to BAS for evaluation.  

On 8 Feb 10, an AF IMT 348, Line of Duty (LOD) Determination, was initiated due to the applicant’s history of abdominal pains and his admittance into the hospital on 9 Oct 09 to have urgent surgery for the removal of his gallbladder.  It was noted that after surgery he failed at attempts for rehabilitation and re-entry into BMT.  

On 8 Feb 10, a 37 MDG Form, 37th TRW Temporary Duty Restriction Form, was initiated recommending an indefinite training, detail and specific restrictions for the applicant’s participation in his recommended Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing.  

On 8 Feb 10, according to an MEB summary, a physician assistant and general medical officer indicated the applicant arrived to BMT without disclosing an extensive medical and psychological history.  His past medical history included abdominal pain, bipolar disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), and a growth hormone deficiency (diagnosed in 2003).  He had a significant history of oppositional defiant behavior that is documented by two case therapy workers during his 22 month stay at a center for troubled youth.  The applicant’s separation was recommended because his retention in the military service would be prejudicial to the best interests of the government and his incapacitating abdominal pain would prevent the applicant from performing his duties.  

On 12 Feb 10, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant’s condition be found to be in the LOD.  

On 12 Feb 10, the applicant acknowledged his right to request an impartial review of the findings by an air force physician or other appropriate health care professional, as well as his rights and obligations under the Disability Evaluation System (DES).  

On 16 Feb 10, a MEB was convened to evaluate the applicant’s diagnosis of chronic abdominal pain and ADHD for the continuance of active duty.  The applicant’s MEB indicated his medical condition was not pre-existing and his case was referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  

On 19 Feb 10, the applicant was informed of the findings and recommendation of the MEB.  The Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO) counseled the applicant in regards to an impartial review process and he declined to request an impartial review of his MEB.  

On 23 Feb 10, the staff judge advocate concurred with the findings of the applicant’s LOD determination that he was present for duty and did not cause his own injury through any misconduct.  

On 1 Mar 10, the hospital commander approved the MEB’s recommendation for referral to an IPEB.  

On 19 Mar 10, an IPEB convened and found the applicant unfit for continued service because of physical disability and determined that his medical condition was incurred in LOD.  The IPEB determined the applicant’s degree of impairment was permanent and recommended he be discharged with a ten percent compensable disability rating and entitlement to severance pay.  

On 22 Mar 10, the applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB.  He waived his right to a formal PEB hearing with the understanding that his case may be referred to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for further review and final decision.  

On 22 Mar 10, officials with the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) determined the applicant was physically unfit for continued military service and directed he be discharged for physical disability with entitlement to severance pay.  

On 26 Mar 10, the applicant was honorably discharged, with a narrative reason for separation of “Disability, Severance Pay,” and was issued an SPD code of “JFL” (physical disability with severance pay) and an RE code of “2Q.”  He was credited with 6 months and 12 days of total active service.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C and Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial, indicating the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s disability process.  The applicant contends that he has altered his diet to determine which foods cause discomfort and his diet is not restrictive enough to prevent him from eating anything that military dining facilities would offer.  Although the applicant’s IPEB included other diagnosed conditions, he was discharged for chronic abdominal pain.  He had noted abdominal pain prior to entering the service, but had increased symptoms after his gall bladder removal.  The IPEB recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent.  Therefore, the reentry code of “2Q” is the correct re-enlistment code for a member who was approved for a medial retirement or separation.  

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

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating the applicant’s RE code of “2Q” is accurately reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, chapter 3, based on the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force determination of the applicant being found unfit for continued military service and directing his discharge based on his disability.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 22 Mar 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting correcting the applicant’s record for reentry into military service.  The applicant contends his mental health issues and gall bladder surgery complications were the cause of his early separation and that he is now currently fit to serve, irrespective of the Air Force’s previous erroneous findings.  However, after thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant’s disability discharge was carried out in accordance with the prescribing directives.  We note the applicant has cited several “similar” previous decisions by this Board to grant relief, essentially asserting that the circumstances are significantly close enough that similar consideration should be applied to his case and relief be granted.  We note that each case presented before this Board is considered on its own merits and precedent does not bind us.  While we do strive for consistency in the manner in which evidence is evaluated and analyzed, we are not bound to recommend relief in one circumstance simply because the situation being reviewed appears similar to another case.  In the various cases cited by the applicant, only one appears to contain a similar fact pattern where precedent could be applicable.  In this particular case, the Board granted the applicant’s request to change his 2Q RE Code to a code that would allow him to apply for appointment, noting that in performing the duties of a nurse anesthesiologist, it was unlikely he would come into contact with the allergen which caused his initial separation when he served in another specialty.  However, in the case under review, although the purported purpose of applicant’s reentry is to pursue appointment as a nurse anesthetist, unlike the applicant in the cited case, his degree of impairment for chronic abdominal pain is considered permanent and would prevent him from performing his military duties, regardless of the specialty to which he would be assigned.  As for the other five cited cases cited by the applicant, while those applicants’ requests to change their assigned RE codes were granted, the circumstances giving rise to those cases had nothing to do with a finding that they were physically unfit or disqualified to serve.  Therefore, the applicant is not similarly situated to these applicants and precedent is not a controlling issue in our decision on the instant case.  Therefore, 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 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-2013-00333 in Executive Session on 19 Dec 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 13, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 31 Jan 13.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 7 Mar 13.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 13.




                                   
                                   Chair


6