RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00733
				COUNSEL: NONE
				HEARING DESIRED: NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty, and medically discharged in the 
grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was hospitalized on numerous occasions to include an emergency 
room visit and was misdiagnosed at each of these visits.  He was 
taken to a DVA Regional hospital on 28 March 2013 and was 
diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.  He remained in intensive 
care for over a month unable to breath without the aid of a 
respirator.  

Guillain-Barre Syndrome is a rare disease and he was informed that 
he would never fully recover.  He was totally incapacitated for 
numerous months and is continuing medical treatment through the 
DVA.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; 
DVA medical records, statements from co-workers, fact sheets, 
military orders, Power of Attorney, and various other documents 
associated with his request.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 January 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force.

According to Special Order AA-413 dated 18 May 2012, the applicant 
was demoted to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt, E-5) effective 
and with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 7 May 2012.

According to Special Order AA-437 dated 18 December 2012, the 
applicant was demoted to the grade of Senior Airman (SrA, E-4) 
effective and with a DOR of 1 December 2012.

On 6 November 2012, the applicant’s commander notified him that 
she was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFPD 
36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-26.6, Failure to 
meet minimum fitness standards.

On 6 November 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification.

On 5 February 2013, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver 
request for an honorable discharge and waived his right to a board 
hearing.

On 12 March 2013, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the 
discharge authority accept the conditional waiver and separate the 
applicant for “Unsatisfactory Performance:  Failure to Meet 
Minimum Fitness Standards” with an honorable service 
characterization, without Probation and Rehabilitation.

On 14 March 2013, the discharge authority directed that the 
applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge.  Probation 
and rehabilitation was considered and deemed inappropriate.

On 22 March 2013, the applicant was honorably separated from the 
Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208.  His narrative 
reason for separation is “Physical Standards.”  He served on 
active duty for a period of 18 years, 2 months and 19 days.

According to Special Order AA-450 dated 27 March 2013, the 
applicant was demoted to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C, E-
3) effective and with a DOR of 14 March 2013.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be 
reinstated into the Air Force.  Based on the documentation on file 
in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  The applicant failed his fifth Fitness Assessment (FA) 
within a 23-month period, therefore, he failed to meet and 
maintain Air Force fitness standards, which is a sufficient basis 
for discharge.  Notwithstanding remedial efforts by the 
applicant's unit, it was apparent that he was either not capable 
or not willing to make the effort necessary to meet and maintain 
Air Force fitness requirements.  The applicant was afforded ample 
opportunity to overcome his deficiencies.  However, attempts to 
rehabilitate him through several administrative actions (to 
include demotion) were unsuccessful.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be 
reinstated into the Air Force in the grade of TSgt.  The commander 
acted within his authority to demote the applicant for his failure 
to maintain fitness standards.  In accordance with AFI 36-2502, 
Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, paragraph 6.3.5., airmen may 
be demoted for failing to maintain or demonstrate the ability and 
willingness to attain physical standards.  In accordance with AFI 
36-2905, Air Force Fitness Program, unit commanders may take 
adverse administrative action upon a member's unsatisfactory 
fitness score on an official FA.  Attachment 14 provides 
commanders guidance when selecting the appropriate administrative 
and personnel actions for members who fail to maintain physical 
fitness standards.  The demotion action taken against the 
applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence of any 
irregularities or that the case was mishandled in any way.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s 
request for reinstatement to active duty and to be medically 
discharged at the highest grade held.  In order to receive a 
medical separation or retirement, there must be an illness or 
injury that interfered with the applicant's ability to perform his 
military duties to the extent and/or duration that warranted 
processing for medical separation under the authority of AFI 36-
3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and 
Separation.  Although a witness states the applicant reportedly 
experienced symptoms of numbness and tingling of his extremities 
starting on 19 March 2013 [prior to his discharge date 22 March 
2013] and reportedly noted his difficulty ambulating during this 
period, his clinical presentation at a civilian emergency 
department occurred the day after his discharge, although, in 
retrospect, errantly attributed to anxiety and stress.  The 
applicant's career was not cut short due to the medical condition, 
but due to his FA failures, principally due to his abdominal 
circumference measurements. 

The Medical Consultant found no association between the 
applicant's FA failures and Guillain-Barre Syndrome.  While it is 
likely the, DVA has established or will establish service 
connection for the applicant's medical condition, Guillain-Barre 
clearly was not the cause of terminating his career.

Had the applicant been diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome 
prior to his discharge, he would likely have been placed on 
medical hold for further evaluation and treatment; with 
considerations for referral through the Disability Evaluation 
System.  Then officials would have been confronted with two 
competing causes for career termination.  Now, one year-plus since 
discharge, the Medical Consultant is not privy to the applicant's 
current clinical status or whether there are permanent residual 
impairments, if any, related to his disease; noting the widely 
variable prognosis for recovery, from a few weeks to as long as a 
few years.  About 30 percent of those with the Guillain-Barre 
Syndrome still have residual weakness after 3 years and about 
3 percent may suffer a relapse of muscle weakness, according to an 
online National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke 
publication.  No evidence is supplied for the Board's 
consideration with this regard, e.g., disability ratings by the 
DVA.

The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 12 November 2014, copies of the Air Force and BCMR Medical 
evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and 
comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office (Exhibit F).


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

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 agree with the opinions and recommendations 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and the BCMR 
Medical Consultant and adopt the rationale expressed 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 this application in 
Executive Sessions on 15 January 2015, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2014-
00733 was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 January 2014, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 1 April 2014.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 14 May 2014.
Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
30 September 2014.
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 November 2014.