RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05714

			COUNSEL:  NONE

		        HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be medically discharged.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been medically discharged.  He was injured while 
on active duty and the injury ended his Air Force Reserve 
career.  His current Air Force (AF) Information Management Tool 
(IMT)) 131, Application for Transfer to the Retired Reserve, 
should have reflected that he was medically disqualified to 
perform his duties and that he was not recommended for 
reenlistment due to his Line of Duty injury.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
AF IMT 131, AF IMT 618, Medical Board Report, AF Form 1042, 
Medical Recommendation for Flying or Special Operational Duty, 
AF IMT, Statement of Record Data, AF Form 418, Selective 
Reenlistment Program Consideration, AF Form 348, Line of Duty 
Determination, and DD Form 261, Report of Investigation Line of 
Duty and Misconduct Status, with sworn testimony.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to documents extracted from the automated records 
management system (ARMS) the applicant enlisted in the Air Force 
Reserves on 13 April 1978.  On 5 July 2006 he was released from 
his, then, current assignment and assigned to the HQ ARPC 
Retired Reserve section and placed on the Retired Reserve List 
awaiting retirement at age 60 (2 March 2018).  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force at Exhibit C.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the 
applicant's petition to supplant his established reason for 
separation with a medical retirement.  As an overview, the 
applicant sustained an In Line of Duty (ILOD) injury to his back 
in 1993 after being struck by a landing-gear door which 
reportedly slipped from the hands of an officer holding onto the 
door.  Although the applicant's more recent testimony suggests 
that he reportedly experienced chronic recurring back pain and 
paresthesias of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, there 
is also evidence that the applicant did not report any chronic 
pain or an inability to perform his duties as a result of a 
medical ailment over a several year period after his initial 
injury (between 1993 to 2003), as shown through his consistent 
reports of “good” health on periodic physical assessments.  
Moreover, the evidence necessary for establishing service 
connection of his pain of 2003 with the ILOD injury sustained in 
1993 is challenged by the report of intervening injuries 
(cutting down a tree, summer 2001 and automobile accident, 
January 2003) while not in a duty status.  

2.  Additionally, the applicant's clinical history, as disclosed 
by him in 1993 significantly differs from that disclosed in 
2003, not only in degree and frequency of pain, but also in 
location of injury along with new complaints of paresthesias of 
the bilateral upper and lower extremities.  Specifically, the 
1993 report indicated that the applicant was “struck in the back 
at the waist level” and that he was able to resume duties, while 
the more recent account from the applicant indicates that he was 
“struck on the neck and back in 1993.”  This latter scenario may 
be intended to establish a possible correlation with the left-
sided cervical disc herniation and L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation 
seen on MRI scans.  Nevertheless, the Medical Consultant opines 
that the mere discovery of the herniated discs (1999 and 2003) 
and the history of a blunt injury to the back in 1993 (which did 
not interrupt duty at the time of injury) are not proof that 
these MRI findings were the direct result of the 1993 injury.  
Indeed, it is possible to discover herniated discs among an 
absolutely asymptomatic population.  The record is void of any 
information that explains the applicant's clinical and/or 
assigned duties between 2003 and the time of his 2006 transfer 
to the Retired Reserve.  The Medical Consultant can only 
speculate that even though likely still disqualified from flying 
duties, the applicant was retained performing alternative non-
flying duties until completion of his term of enlistment.  

3.  Addressing the applicant's contention that he was denied re-
enlistment and should have been medically discharged, AFI 36-
2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force paragraph 
3.16.2, states: “Airmen may not re-enlist (RE code 4K) when the 
AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, clearly indicates 
they are unfit for continued service, or when they are pending 
evaluations by a medical evaluation board (MEB) or physical 
evaluation board (PEB).”  Although the AF Form 618, Medical 
Board Report, indicates that a Medical Evaluation Board may have 
indeed been under consideration in September 2005, it is 
apparent that medical officials concluded the applicant did not 
warrant a medical hold for processing via military Disability 
Evaluation System for a service incurred or aggravated injury or 
illness; by virtue of the absence of such medical and 
administrative evidence in the applicant's case file, which 
otherwise only indicates that he was denied re-enlistment and 
elected to transfer to the Retired Reserve.  Additionally, the 
applicant's record does not show that he would have been 
otherwise eligible for a medical separation or retirement under 
10 U.S.C., §1207a for a medical condition that became 
disqualifying (or unfitting by a Physical Evaluation Board) 
while serving a period of 31 days or more; or that he had 
achieved at least 8 years of active service.  

4.  The BCMR Medical Consultant concludes that despite the fact 
that there are back-and-forth changes in opinion with regard to 
the applicant's LOD determination, the burden of proof has not 
been sufficiently met to replace the applicant's transfer to the 
Retired Reserve List with a medical separation or retirement.  

The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at 
Exhibit C. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 4 April 2013 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  To date, a response has not been received. 

________________________________________________________________

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 of an error or injustice has 
been presented regarding the applicant’s request to be granted a 
medical discharge.  We took notice of the applicant's complete 
submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree 
with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical 
Consultant and adopt the rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant would not have qualified for a 
medical discharge based upon a preponderance of medical evidence 
at or about the time of his release from military service.  
Accordingly, the applicant’s request for a medical discharge is 
not favorably considered.

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 issue(s) 
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 this application 
in Executive Session on 15 October 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
			, Member
			, Member



The following documentary evidence was considered n AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-05714:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Nov 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
29 Mar 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 4 April 2013