RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01580
      COUNSEL: NONE
	               				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He be medically discharged 

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has been deemed 100 percent service-connected disabled by the 
Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA).  

The applicant does not provide any additional evidence in 
support of his appeal.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.  

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained 
in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation at 
Exhibits C, D, and E.  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTT indicates they cannot address whether the applicant is 
warranted a medical discharge; however, they can address the 
aspects of his Mandatory Separation Date (MSD).  The applicant 
became a twice deferred officer in 2010 and was notified he 
qualified for sanctuary with 18 years of satisfactory service.  
He was then transferred to the Non-Affiliated Reserve Section in 
Reserve Sanctuary, on 18 May 2010, as required by Air Force 
Instruction 36-2115, Assignments within the Reserve Components, 
where he was offered the opportunity to earn points for 20 years 
of satisfactory service towards retirement.  On 22 May 2012, a 
letter was mailed to the applicant notifying him that he had not 
completed 20 years of satisfactory service and he would be 
discharged on 17 May 2013 upon reaching his MSD.  

DPTT indicates their office shows no record that the applicant 
ever inquired about information on enrolling Extension Course 
Institute programs for points or asked about other point gaining 
activities for retirement eligibility.  Therefore, the 
applicant’s discharge appears to be based solely on non-
selection for promotion.  Based on the information provided, 
they recommend the applicant’s case be sent to a medical 
consultant for determination as to whether a medical discharge 
is warranted.  

The complete DPTT evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Disability 
Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital 
fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code 
(USC), only offer compensation for those service incurred 
diseases or injuries which specifically renders a member unfit 
for continued active service and were the case for career 
termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present 
at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences.  
In the case under review, it could not be established that the 
applicant was unable to reasonably perform his military duties 
due to one or more medical conditions during his military 
service, as would be demonstrated through medical narratives and 
summaries of his care and the imposition of duty restrictions of 
a sufficient level of restriction that warranted processing 
through the military DES under AFI 36-3212.  

Although the applicant reportedly has been awarded a total 
(100%) disability rating for one or more service connected 
medical conditions by the DVA, no evidence is presented to show 
either of these interfered with his military service to the 
extent or duration that warranted an alternative medical release 
from military service.  

Operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, USC) with a 
different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation 
for any medical condition determined service incurred following 
the discharge of a service member, without regard to, and 
dependent of, its demonstrated or proven impact upon the service 
member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or narrative reason 
for separation.  This is the reason an individual can be found 
fit for release from military service, or may be released for 
one reason and yet, sometime thereafter, receive compensation 
ratings from the DVA for one or more service-connected medical 
conditions that were proven militarily unfitting at the time of 
release from service.  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-connected medical condition may 
vary (improve or worsen) over the lifetime of the veteran.  

It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that the applicant 
has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that 
warrants the desired change of record.  

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

ARPC/SG recommends denial.  SG states that review of their 
database shows they do not have any records of the applicant 
having a duty-related condition that would have resulted in the 
possibility of him being given a medical retirement.  In 
addition, the applicant does not submit any medical 
documentation to support his claim.  

The complete SG evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the evaluations by the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant were forwarded to 
the applicant on 10 June 2013 for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit F).  As of this date, this office has received no 
reply.  

________________________________________________________________
_

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 an injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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.

________________________________________________________________
_

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-2013-01580 in Executive Session on 16 January 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                        , Vice Chair
	                        , Member
	                        , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01580:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 13.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPTT, dated 7 May 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 May 13.
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFRC/SG, dated 7 Jun 13.
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 13.




                       
Vice Chair

4

3