RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00165
		INDEX CODE:  100.03
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 JUL 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to enable her to pursue a commission in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She believes her discharge was incorrectly documented and prevents her from pursuing a commission.  She feels the disqualification was specific only to the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) she had at the time of her discharge.  

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and background documentation related to her discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 27 May 1998, for a term of 4 years.  

She experienced chronic lower back pain and was placed on several medical profiles beginning in September 1999.  The profile dated 23 March 2000, indicated she was not worldwide qualified and her restrictions to duty were documented as no mobility, no lifting over 10 pounds and no high impact activities.  On 19 June 2000, she underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB), and on 26 June 2000, the informal physical evaluation board (IPEB) determined that her chronic lower back pain was associated with mild scoliosis and retrolisthesis with hypermobility of L5-S1, which existed prior to service without service aggravation.  The IPEB found the applicant unfit for continued service and recommended administrative discharge.  

On 29 June 2000, the applicant agreed with the Board’s findings and on 30 June 2000, officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force directed she be discharged without disability benefits 

She was administratively separated on 21 August 2000, due to a disability that existed prior to service.  She served 2 years, 2 months and 25 days total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends denial.  SGPS states a review of the applicant’s record reveals a long history of low back pain for which she met a medical board and was released from the Air Force.  Her final prognosis notes her condition to be chronic; long-term improvement of resolution is unlikely, and that she should be restricted to light desk duties only with limitations of lifting, bending and all impact activities.  

SGPS states her condition was noted as chronic and although she has maintained a lifestyle that has not aggravated her condition, return to the military can not guarantee this will continue, her diagnosis and long term prognosis is not conducive to military service.

The SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states, she disagrees with several items found in the advisory and would like to pursue a commission in the Air Force.  

When she enlisted in the Air Force she chose an AFSC based on her outstanding ASVAB scores and was guaranteed an AFSC in her enlistment contract.  Individuals select or are limited to certain AFSCs within the Air Force due to physical limitations such as color blindness, physical fitness standards and so on.

She states that AFI 48-123, A 18.2.5, states, for a military member to be deployable, that individual must be able to perform “heavy physical work over at least a short period of time.”  She is capable of doing physical work as long as it is not part of her daily job requirement.

She believes she has provided the Board sufficient documentation to show she is physically better now than at the time of her discharge.  

Her 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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case. In particular, we note the statement provided by the applicant, which states at the present time she is capable of doing physical work as long as it is not part of her daily job requirement.  However, while it appears that she is currently not exhibiting signs of chronic back pain, the Board agrees with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the applicant was properly evaluated while on active duty and that duties within the Air Force are filled on a need rather than personal preference or limitations.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board adopts their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice and finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in the 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-2005-00165 in Executive Session on 24 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Vice Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 21 Dec 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 18 Mar 05.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 05.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Apr 05.

	
	Vice Chair