RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05403
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reentry (RE) code of “2Q” (Personnel medically retired or 
discharged) be changed to a code that would allow him to 
reenlist.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires to reenlist and has been denied VA Benefits.  Upon 
arriving at Osan AB Korea, in July 2001, he was told that due to 
a past injury - he was not supposed to PCS.  Due to his medical 
history he was sent to a Medical Evaluation Board, which chose 
to separate him from the Air Force.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 August 
1998.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 18 December 2001 
and referred the applicant's case to an Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of Cervical and 
Thoracic Back Pain.  On 8 January 2001, the IPEB found him unfit 
for further military service and recommended discharge with 
severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent.  The 
applicant did not agree with the findings and recommended 
disposition of the IPEB and requested a formal hearing.  On 27 
February 2002, the FPEB found him unfit for further military 
service.  The FPEB further recommended discharge with severance 
pay with a disability rating of 10 percent.  He did not agree 
with the findings and recommendation of the FPEB and did not to 
submit a rebuttal.  On 1 March 2002, the Secretary of the Air 
Force directed the applicant be separated from active service 
for physical disability under the provisions of 10 USC 1203, 
with severance pay computed under Section 1212 of this title.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states RE code RE code 2Q 
is correct per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, chapter 3, 
based on his disability discharge.  The applicant's DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, accurately 
reflects his RE code at the time of separation.

The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the Board consider 
changing the applicant's RE code to allow service re-entry.  
However, this should not be based upon an error or injustice, 
but upon the likelihood that, through time, the applicant has 
recovered from his previous injury.

The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant was injured in 
a fall during a training event.  His injury received maximum 
medical benefit and included professional opinions_ and 
interventions recommended by multiple specialists; as well as an 
extended course of physical therapy and profile restrictions.  
Despite this evidence of record, the applicant was somehow 
allowed to PCS to Osan AB, ROK, which upon his arrival, 
healthcare providers opined he should never have been allowed to 
PCS.  It is unclear what clinical parameters or measures were 
evaluated to clear the applicant for PCS, since he was already 
carrying profile restrictions that prohibited TDY and PCS 
assignments.  Therefore, due to the applicant's history of 
intractable symptoms, medical officials proceeded with a Medical 
Evaluation Board; although the applicant contends he was 
asymptomatic at that point. 

The applicant wishes to re-enter military service, possibly as a 
Reservist.  The Board and the applicant should be aware that the 
Reserve component often carries the heavier-lift among deployed 
missions.  Thus, there remains some uncertainty of the 
durability of the applicant's reported symptom-free status if 
subjected to the rigors attendant with military service.  The 
applicant's demonstrated service in the civilian sector, while 
noteworthy, is not equivalent to the physical and emotional 
stressors put upon our military personnel.  The Board may elect 
to change the applicant's RE-code to allow him to serve the 
country, as requested.  However, the objective supplied evidence 
does not reflect an error or injustice occurred in the previous 
discharge action.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at 
Exhibit D.




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he was hired as a police officer in 
Arkansas in January 2005.  He worked in one of the most 
dangerous cities in the United States.  He put his life on the 
line every day.  He is currently a detective assigned to the 
violent crime unit and a member of the Special Weapons and 
Tactics (SWAT) team.  He is exposed to stressful situations on a 
daily basis, situations where he has to make a split second life 
or death decisions and situations that are extremely physically 
demanding.  He desires to reenlist.

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 an error or injustice.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
rebuttal comments, we believe that given the circumstances 
surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the RE code 
assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate 
instructions.  In addition, the applicant has not provided any 
evidence which would lead us to believe that a change to his RE 
code to allow him to reenlist is warranted.  Therefore, we agree 
with AFPC/DPSOA and adopt its rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  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 an 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-2013-05403 in Executive Session on 28 October 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 August 2013, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 February 2014.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
	            28 August 2014.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 September 2014.
  Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 September 2014.