RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01018
								INDEX CODE:  110.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 October 2008

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be changed to reflect a medical discharge.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge, he had some serious medical conditions.

He was not aware that there was a statute of limitations to contest a discharge.

In support of his appeal, he has furnished copies of numerous personnel and medical documents pertaining to his discharge.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 November 1972 for four years, and served as an aircraft maintenance specialist.

On 4 April 1974, the applicant requested separation due to his non-productive status and a desire not to cross-train into a different career field, and also cited family concerns as an additional reason to support his desire to be separated from the service.  His request was disapproved.

On 15 May 1974, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for an honorable discharge due to his being in a non-productive status since 1 November 1973, and the fact he could not perform in his AFSC due to his continuous duty excuses, specifically:

a.	Four medical, heavy-duty excuses, dated 19 October 1973, 12 December 1973, 28 January 1974, and 2 March 1974

b.	His request through the Consolidated Base Personnel Office (CBPO) for a medical discharge

c.	His request for separation under the provisions of AFM 39-10, paragraph 3-8o, unique and unusual reasons

d.	A recommendation by the Acting Chief, Personnel Division, and the Assistant DCS/Personnel, Strategic Air Command (SAC), that he be separated

Although not stated as a reason for discharge, the applicant’s records reflect that he was given an Article 15 for, on or about 5 July 1973, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, for which he received a reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1), suspended until 18 December 1973, and forfeiture of $100.00 a month for two months.  It also reflects that he was counseled on 7 May 1973 for tardiness and uniform violations, and on 21 May 1973 for being late to work, he was given a Letter of Reprimand on 24 May 1973 for failing to go to the dental clinic, and that he was counseled on 6 June 1973 for being late to work.  

The commander advised the applicant that military counsel would be made available, if requested, to assist him in preparing his request for retention.

On 15 May 1974, the applicant waived his right to consult legal counsel, request retention, or submit statements in his own behalf.  

A legal review was conducted on 4 June 1974, in which the staff judge advocate recommended that the applicant be separated with an honorable discharge characterization for his inability to adjust to the demands of military life or to meet the standards of duty performance and self-discipline required of satisfactory airmen. 

On 7 June 1974, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman first class (E-3) for his inability to adjust to the demands of military life or to meet the standards of duty performance and self-discipline required of satisfactory airmen, IAW AFM 39-10, Chapter 3, Section B, paragraph 3-8(L).  He received an honorable service characterization, and served a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 5 days of net active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Advisor is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s records is warranted.  A review of his medical records shows that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 12 July 1973, and sustained a scalp laceration which required overnight hospitalization for observation of a possible concussion and placement on quarters for one day.  He reported improvement the next day and was returned to duty.  He returned to the clinic on 23 July 1973 with back pain and was placed on a light-duty profile for seven days; examination failed to reveal any significant pathology.  He was given stretching exercises on 28 August 1973, X-rays on 12 October 1973 were normal, and he saw an orthopedic surgeon on 13 November 1973 who felt he had a mild lumbo-sacral liga-mentous strain and placed him on an L-3 profile, restricting his lifting and duty activities.  In a letter of 29 March 1974, the hospital administrator noted that the applicant had an L-2 Physical Profile which restricted him from heavy lifting; however, he noted no indications for a Medical Evaluation Board.

There was little mention of headaches in the service medical records as pertains to the applicant’s history of headaches since the motor vehicle accident, but the headaches have become more significant over the past ten years.  He has had negative MRIs and CT scans, and stated to a neurologist in 2002 that his headaches after the accident originally occurred approximately six times a year, were severe at the onset, and sometimes lasted up to three days with lessening severity.  The headaches diminished in frequency and severity over the 1970s and 1980s, but reoccurred about 10 years ago.

On 21 October 1974, the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded the applicant a zero disability rating for lumbo-sacaral strain and organic brain syndrome due to trauma (due to a high school football injury).  On 14 July 2005, he was awarded an additional 50% disability rating for migraine headaches, and 10% for degenerative disc and joint disease of the lumbar spine, mild.

Based on the documentation in his service medical records, his headaches did not appear to be disabling.  While the applicant was incapable of performing his current duties, cross-training into another career field was an option but he refused the opportunity; hence, he was not truly considered disabled and his medical condition did not cut his Air Force career short – his refusal to cross-train did.  The administrative separation was the correct decision under the circumstances since he couldn’t perform the duties of his AFSC but was capable of performing duties in another, less strenuous career field.  The preponderance of evidence of the record shows that the applicant’s low-back condition was appropriately managed, and action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable, reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded in a letter dated 20 September 2007, stating that he had previously asked for a medical discharge which was disapproved.  

He states that after the auto accident, he had a lot of tremendous back pain, some days were better than others, and upon his release from the Air Force, he was wearing a back brace which he has worn throughout the years and still wears.  He didn’t know what a migraine headache was at the time, there was no pattern to the headaches, and they would only last for a few hours.  However, as he got older, the migraines became more frequent and forced him to seek the help of a neurologist, and no medicine that has been prescribed helps.  

He further states that, due to his migraines, he missed a tremendous amount of time at work when he was employed by the U.S. Postal Service, and this eventually led to his release in May 2004.  He has had four different employers since January 2007 as he could not perform his duties due to tremendous back pain and the extensive standing time.  He entered the Air Force as an aircraft maintenance specialist, and, even though cross-training would have given him an easier job, it would not have eliminated his back pain and migraines.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

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 opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The BCMR Medical Consultant advises that while the applicant was incapable of performing his current duties, cross-training into another career field was an option but he refused the opportunity; hence, he was not truly considered disabled and his medical condition did not cut his Air Force career short – his refusal to cross-train did.  Since he couldn’t perform the duties of his AFSC but was capable of performing duties in another, less strenuous career field, the administrative separation was the correct decision under the circumstances.  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-2007-01018 in Executive Session on 25 October 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
				XXXXXXXXXX, Member
				XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated 11 Sep 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Sep 07
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 07.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair