RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02171 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His narrative reason for separation of ‘‘expiration of term of service’’ be changed to reflect ‘‘physical disability.’’

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes the Air Force failed to properly document his discharge.

In support of the request, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, a physical evaluation, dated 14 Nov 56, and congressional correspondence.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 15 Aug 56, the applicant entered the Air Force Reserve.
On 18 Oct 56, the applicant was hospitalized for suspected Coccidioidomycosis (an infectious respiratory disease of humans and other animals caused by inhaling the fungus Coccidioides immitis.);  however, no disease was found.

On 14 Nov 56, the applicant’s commander requested that he undergo a physical evaluation to assess his physical suitability for retention. The applicant’s evaluation revealed a normal physical examination.

In 13 Jul 60, the applicant was evaluated and the evaluation revealed the applicant had normal musculoskeletal and neurological examination.

On 31 Jul 60, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve for ‘‘expiration of term of service.’’

Other relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the BCMR IMA Assistant Medical Advisor’s evaluation, which is at Exhibit G.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial and states the application should be dismissed as untimely. DPSOS states there is insufficient evidence contained within the applicant’s military record to confirm the circumstances and facts surrounding his discharge and he has not provided any facts or evidence warranting a change to his narrative reason for separation.

The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/JA recommends denial. JA states the applicant did not provide any evidence to support his assertion that his discharge was improperly documented. Additionally, he does not explain as to why it would be in the interest of justice for the Board to waive the time limits. Further, the delay prevents the Air Force from defending against the claim of error or injustice except through the applicant’s available military records.

The complete HQ AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
He struggled with asthmatic bronchitis and major recurrent depression with anxiety while on active duty and the recommendation of a ‘‘physical disability discharge’’ was not followed through by the Air Force. Yet years later, the Department of Veterans Affairs awards him compensation for both conditions.  Therefore, he believes the award supports his claim.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR IMA Assistant Medical Advisor recommends denial. He states there is insufficient evidence of any physical disability that would have limited, restricted or resulted in the inability of the applicant to perform his assigned duties as an automotive mechanic. The claim of separation due to a ‘‘physical disability’’ rather than ‘‘expiration of term of service’’ is unsubstantiated by the medical documentation.

The complete BCMR IMA Assistant Medical Advisor’s evaluation is at Exhibit G.

APPLICANT REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the BCMR IMA Assistant Medical Advisor’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 Feb 11 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit H). As of this date, this office has not received a response.

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 offices of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale 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 Docket Number BC-2008-02171 in Executive Session on 9 March 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

XXXX, Panel Chair XXXX, Member XXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for Docket Number BC-2008-02171:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 2 Aug 10. Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 21 Sep 10.
Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 10. Exhibit F.	Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Oct 10.
Exhibit G.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Jan 11. Exhibit H.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Feb 11.
Exhibit I.	Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Mar 11, w/atch.