RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01809
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

	MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 DEC 05

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he did not receive a retirement physical.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not receive a retirement physical examination.  The retirement physical in his records is fraudulent as it was actually an annual flight physical that was forged into being a retirement physical.  He filed a complaint with the Inspector General regarding the fraudulent examination with documented proof of the forgery, and no action was ever taken.  He currently has a claim before the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) listing seven medical disabilities which include cancer (Agent Orange), sinusitis, osteoarthritis, atelectasis (both lungs), concussion (aircraft accident caused seizure disorder), tinnitus and hearing loss, and chronic disability of the right knee and left hip.  All of the conditions are documented by active duty medical histories.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, documentation associated with his DVA appeal, documentation extracted from his medical records, his retirement order, a copy of his DD Form 214, and a copy of his DVA rating decision.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Enlisted Reserve Corps on 13 Dec 42 and was discharged on 22 May 44.  He was appointed a second lieutenant, Army of the United States on 23 May 44.  He served on various assignments in the Army Air Corps, Air Force Reserves, and on Active Duty.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 22 Feb 66.  He served as an aviation physiologist and a pilot.  On 1 Mar 70, he submitted an application for voluntary retirement to be effective 1 Sep 70.  On 24 Mar 70, he received a physical examination.  On 7 Apr 70, he submitted an addendum to his application for voluntary retirement requesting his projected retirement date be changed to 1 Jul 70.  He served 22 years, 7 months and 26 days total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states his medical clearance for flying expired over three months prior to his projected retirement date.  A flying examination was required in order for him to continue flying duties.  He also required a retirement physical, according to Air Force policy.  Records show he underwent a comprehensive examination that satisfied both requirements.  The applicant wrote in block 5, Purpose of Exam, "An Fly + Retirement" indicating the dual purpose of the examination.  This dual purpose is also written on the electrocardiographic record as well.  The presence of an SF 89 and SF 88, one for retirement and one for medical clearance, is consistent with this.  Regardless, even if he had not known he was retiring at the time of the examination, the comprehensive nature of the flight examination satisfies the documentary requirements of a retirement medical examination, and was performed well within the 8-month time frame required by regulation.  Even though the retirement examination may not list every reason he sought or received medical care over his 27-year career, the DVA has a copy of his service medical record for use in adjudicating a decision regarding service connected disabilities.  The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he disagrees with the findings of the Medical Consultant and requests investigation by a senior flight surgeon.  The regulation governing this subject established procedures, examination, techniques, and medical standards from all medical examinations normally given by the Air Force.  He received a letter from the base personnel office stating his retirement would be effective 1 Sep 70 and that he would be notified when to begin medical processing.  His complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________

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 his assertions that corrective action is warranted in this case.  We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant who notes that the applicant received a physical prior to his retirement which met the regulatory requirements of both a flight and retirement physical.  Therefore, we adopt his 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 compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01809 in Executive Session on 9 Jun 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Mar 05.

    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Mar 05.