RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03324
		INDEX NUMBER:  145.00
	XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he incurred a shoulder and lower back injury while performing official duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He incurred his injuries while attempting to remove ejection seat rails that would not move up out of the rear cockpit.  He was observed by four other men.  It was stated that he got injured in a wrestling match with a friend.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 5 Oct 81.  On 1 Feb 85, the applicant’s squadron commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory duty performance and irresponsibility in the management of personal finances according to AFR 39-10.  The applicant was notified of his right to consult legal counsel, present his case to an administrative discharge board, be represented by legal counsel at a board hearing, and to submit statements in his own behalf, in addition to, or in lieu of the board hearing.  The applicant was scheduled to meet military legal counsel and was scheduled for a medical examination on 14 Feb 85.  The applicant was found to be worldwide qualified with the only defects noted as 41 pounds over maximum allowable weight and bilateral high frequency hearing loss.

On 1 Feb 85, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the combat support group commander that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for unsatisfactory duty performance and irresponsibility in the management of personal finances under AFR 39-10.  It was recommended that the applicant be given a general discharge.  The applicant was not recommended for probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s notification on 5 Feb 85.  On 6 Feb 85, the applicant acknowledged his rights and elected to have an administrative discharge board, to consult military counsel, and not to submit statements in his own behalf.  His military legal counsel endorsed the applicant’s elections.

On 14 Feb 85, the combat support group staff judge advocate reviewed the discharge action against the applicant and found no errors or irregularities.  He concurred with the squadron commander’s recommendation of a general discharge and recommended that the combat support group commander direct the convening of an administrative discharge board.  On 19 Feb 85, the combat support group commander directed that a discharge board be scheduled to consider the applicant’s recommended discharge.  On 24 Apr 85, the combat support group staff judge advocate performed a second legal review of the recommended discharge action against the applicant.  It was determined that an unusually long period of time had elapsed with no board date set.  This was due to the applicant’s indication through counsel that he would submit a conditional waiver for an honorable discharge.  The applicant did not submit the waiver until 16 Apr 85.  The applicant’s squadron commander supported the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge.  The staff judge advocate recommended that the applicant be granted an honorable discharge and not be granted probation and rehabilitation.

On 1 May 85, the combat support group commander approved the applicant’s discharge under AFR 39-10 with an honorable discharge certificate without probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant was discharged on 20 May 85.

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained in the evaluation prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force found at Exhibits C and D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends that the applicant’s requests be denied.  Evidence of the record indicates that the applicant strained his left shoulder in May 82 and was treated with physical therapy resulting in full recovery.  He continued to perform his duties for three more years without further medical record entries for shoulder problems.  No back problems are evident in the medical records.  As long as an injury incurred while on active duty is not due to misconduct or negligence, it is considered as having occurred in the line of duty.  Whether it occurs while performing duty or engaged in legal and approved recreational activities makes no difference with regard to any service connection determination that may be made at a later date.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.  They provide an overview of the disability evaluation system (DES), how an individual is normally processed through the DES, and when a condition is considered unfitting.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on    25 Apr 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 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 adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 Docket Number BC-2003-03324 in Executive Session on 4 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 10 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 21 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.