RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02196

				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

Her discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not medically retired after 15 years of service.  
Instead, her term of service was allowed to expire.  She was not 
aware of the impact of her term expiring versus being medically 
disqualified.  As a Reserve First Sergeant, she was never 
briefed on the significance of the difference in the processes 
or the impact on her future.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, documentation from her master personnel file and 
medical records.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

A review of the applicant’s service records indicate she 
enlisted in 1973.  She was transferred to the Non-obligated 
Nonparticipating Ready Reserve in December 1987 and honorably 
discharged from the Air Force Reserves in December 1991. 

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/SG recommends denial.  The medical documentation provided 
reveals the applicant suffered from several medical conditions.  
At issue is whether those conditions, during her periods of 
service, would have been disqualifying for military service.  

The applicant’s physical exams reveal profiles with “1’s” across 
the board, indicating no disqualifying or duty limiting 
conditions.  At that time, the profile system was used to 
indicate the ability to work and perform as a reservist.  A “4” 
in the profile box was duty limiting.  The only “4” seen in the 
documents was for pregnancy, which restricts the member from 
activities and exposures risky to the fetus and mother.

It is not apparent that she would have been medically 
disqualified at all based on her diagnosis.  If presented today 
with her current complaints, it is highly unlikely she would 
have been medically disqualified to serve in her Air Force 
Specialty Code or perform her military duties.

In addition, as the First Sergeant, she would have been 
responsible for advising members on career decisions and 
certainly would have been able to refer them to appropriate 
resources.  Her performance reports show her to be firewall 5’s 
indicating no lapse in performance.  In sum, she appeared fully 
capable to perform duties, and very well until she elected to 
leave reserve service.

The complete AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical 
Consultant empathizes with the applicant’s contentions, noting 
she effectively performed her military duties, despite periodic 
interruptions due to some medical conditions.  However, none of 
these conditions resulted in duty restrictions of any 
significant duration or level of restriction to bring her 
overall ability to serve into question, noting her contention 
the system allowed her to slip through the process.

The military Disability Evaluation System (DES) established to 
maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 
10, Unite States Code, 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 then only to the degree of impairment present 
at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences.  
Service members are considered unfit when the evidence 
establishes that a member, due to physical disability, is unable 
to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, 
rank, to include duties during a remaining period of Reserve 
obligation.  Based on the supplied evidence, it could not be 
established that the applicant was unable to reasonably perform 
her duties as the unit’s First Sergeant due to one or more of 
her medical conditions.

Moreover, under paragraph E3.P3.3.3, Adequate Performance Until 
Referral, if the evidence establishes the member was referred 
for physical evaluation, the member may be considered fit for 
duty even though the medical evidence indicates questionable 
physical ability to continue to perform duty. Again, based on 
the supplied evidence, the Medical Consultant found no medical 
condition that established, or should have, a cause and effect 
relationship with the applicant’s termination of service, or as 
an alternative, reason for her release from military service.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (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 servicemembers retainability.  With this 
in mind, Title 38 U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation 
system, was written to allow compensation ratings for conditions 
that were not considered unfitting during military service or at 
the time of separation.  Therefore, members can be found fit for 
release from military service for one reason and sometime 
thereafter, receive compensation ratings from the DVA for one or 
more medical conditions that are determined service-connected.

The Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s 
untimely request to supplant her discharge with a medical 
retirement.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She disagrees with the recommendation for the following reasons:  
the 15-year law was not in effect when her cumulative health 
issues were extremely limiting.  Secondly, medical conditions 
that were not in the line of duty were not entered into their 
military medical records.  Next, it was the cumulative medical 
conditions that left her unable to perform her duties.

Reserve personnel were not well informed as to the process of 
handling medically limiting conditions versus line of duty 
profiling.  She was denied the opportunity to return to the 
Reserves because of these medical conditions.  Therefore, she 
does not agree these medical conditions would not have qualified 
her for a medical profile.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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; however, we are not persuaded by the evidence 
submitted in this appeal that a change in the record is 
warranted.   While the applicant contends it was her cumulative 
medical conditions that left her unable to perform her duties, 
the evidence of record does not support the applicant was unfit 
to perform her duty as a First Sergeant.  Therefore, we agree 
with the opinion and recommendation of AFRC/SG and the BCMR 
Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence submitted to 
support the applicant should have been processed for a medical 
retirement.  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-2013-02196 in Executive Session on 28 January 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 1 May 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/SG, dtd 15 Jul 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 26 Aug 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dtd 26 Aug 13.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, dtd 19 Sep 13, 
                w/atchs.