RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00782
      COUNSEL: NONE
	                  				HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His discharge be changed to a medical retirement.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Following his placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List 
(TDRL), which was due to his diagnosis of grade 2/4 
Oligoastrocytoma in the right parietal lobe, associated with 
Seizure Disorder; and, his subsequent “return to duty” 
determination, he chose to separate.  However, he was told that he 
could reenlist with the reentry code of “3K” (Reserved for use by 
HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR) that he received at the time of his 
separation.  He has attempted several times to reenlist, but has 
been continuously refused.  

In January 2012, he had a seizure and passed out.  Until this time 
he had experienced no side-effects and was un-medicated.  After 
speaking with several Air Force and government officials, he was 
told it would be best for him to seek retirement at his grade of 
E-5 even though he was declared “fit for duty.”  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; and, copies of his college transcripts; release from 
TDRL order; and his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
entered active duty on 26 August 1998.  

On 18 May 2004, an MEB diagnosed the applicant with Brain Neoplasm 
– Grade 2/4 Oligoastrocytoma, Right Parietal Lobe, Status Post 
Excision and Chemotherapy Associated with Seizure Disorder 
(Currently Controlled).  The MEB referred the applicant’s case to 
the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  The IPEB concurred 
with the findings of the MEB and recommended the applicant be 
placed on the TDRL with a 100 percent disability rating.  

The applicant was placed on the TDRL and retired effective 
3 November 2004.  He served 6 years, 2 months, and 7 days on 
active duty.  

On 3 March 2006, the applicant underwent a TDRL re-evaluation 
exam.  The IPEB reviewed the new medical information and 
recommended he be removed from the TDRL as being fit to return to 
duty, noting his medical condition had stabilized.  The applicant 
was authorized to reenlist for a period of four, five, or six 
years.  On 20 March 2006, the applicant concurred with the IPEB 
findings and indicated he had no desire to reenlist in the Air 
Force Reserve or in the Regular Air Force.  Special Order ACD-
00646, dated 4 April 2006, was issued removing the applicant from 
the TDRL without entitlement to disability severance pay effective 
24 April 2006.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial.  DPSD states that the preponderance 
of evidence reflects no error or injustice occurred during the 
disability process.  

The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

He was placed on the TDRL against his wishes even though his 
squadron commander submitted a request in his behalf for him to be 
retained on active duty.  After his removal from the TDRL, he 
elected to separate because his reentry code was upgraded to a 
“3K” and he wanted to pursue a commission in the Air Force; 
therefore, he returned to college in 2006.  After being refused by 
the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps, he attempted entry 
into the Army and Army Reserve to no avail.  He was also turned 
down by the Navy.  Even though he was told that he could reenter 
the service with a “3K” reentry code he has found that no branch 
of service is waiving it.  

The applicant’s complete rebuttal 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 in judging the merits of 
the case and do not find that it supports a determination that his 
discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions of the 
governing regulations.  Other than his own assertions, the 
evidence of record appears to indicate the applicant was afforded 
due process through the disability evaluation system and we find 
the evidence submitted insufficient to determine otherwise.  We 
therefore agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air 
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as 
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim 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.  As a matter of 
information, a “3K” reentry code simply affords a member an 
opportunity to apply for a waiver to enlist in the armed services.  
Rejoining the military will depend on the needs of the respective 
military services at the time.  

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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2013-00782 in Executive Sessions on 24 October 2013, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                    , Panel Chair
	                    , Member
	                    , Member



The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00782:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Nov 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 5 Mar 13. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Mar 13.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, not dated.




						                         
									Panel Chair
4

3