RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-02875 INDEX CODE:	110.00
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His	reentry	(RE)	code	of	2Q	(Personnel	medically	retired	or discharged) be changed to allow him to return to active duty.

By amendment at Exhibit F, he requests a waiver to return to active duty.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His diagnosis of sciatica was improper because his back pain became less frequent and eventually was resolved after he was discharged.

He has received a waiver to enlist in the Army National Guard and has transferred to the Air National Guard. He would like to return to active duty and pursue a commission.

In support of his request, applicant provides documents extracted from his military medical records.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 17 Nov 99, the applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class, having assumed the grade effective and with a date of rank of 18 Apr 00. He served as a Security Forces Journeyman.

On 16 Oct 01, he underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The MEB diagnosed him with Sciatica/Left Leg Radiculopathy and referred him to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 20 Nov 01, the IPEB recommended discharge with severance pay with a 10 percent disability rating. The applicant concurred with the findings of the IPEB on 4 Dec 01.

On 6 Feb 02, he was honorably discharged with severance pay with a 10 percent disability rating.	He served 2 years, 2 months and
11 days of active service.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time of separation.

The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states if a member’s status changes after discharge, the DD 214 will not be changed, as the information was correct at the time of discharge. The RE code is correct in accordance with the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) directed discharge with severance pay.

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states he understands that changing his RE code may not be possible. He requests a waiver to return to active duty. He questions how is it possible for him to be deployable with the Missouri Air National Guard, but he is not able to return to active duty status.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states that during the applicant's military service, he sustained an injury that prevented him from performing the duties expected of a Security Forces member. As a result of the chronic recurrent nature of the applicant's condition and the duty restriction imposed, he was found unfit for further military service. However, the applicant has presented evidence of a reported resolution of his symptoms, as shown on a clinical assessment conducted in 2005; at which time there was reportedly no evidence of pain or numbness and tingling of the lower extremities.  The applicant also has reportedly been accepted as a member of the Missouri National Guard. The Medical Consultant believes the chronic recurrent presentation of the applicant's medical condition, the inability to identify a surgically correctable cause of his symptoms, and the localization of symptoms to the left buttock with radiation to the lower left

lateral leg and foot, are consistent with the diagnostic conclusions made by the applicant's health care team. It is duly noted that in 2005 the applicant reported that his symptoms had resolved and he has since been accepted into the Missouri National Guard, and has served as a civilian police officer. However, these reported facts do not invalidate, nor find erroneous, the basis for either the applicant's separation, nor in the RE code assigned. The Medical Consultant acknowledges that if the applicant indeed holds a Security Forces position in our "Mirror Force," along with its attendant physical and deployment requirements, then there should be no impediment for his return to active military service; excluding a Service reduction in force.

The Medical Consultant lauds the applicant’s motivation to serve, but due to the outdated clinical assessments provided and a lack of evidence of his current or more recent clinical status, the Medical Consultant finds no reliable basis upon which to make a determination of the applicant’s fitness to return to active duty; or the appropriateness of a change in his RE code allowing reentry to active military service.

The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at Exhibit G.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 Mar 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no 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 an error or an 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 Air Force offices of primary responsibility and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of either an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
1.	
we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant is 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-2008-02875 in Executive Session on 15 Apr 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 09, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 22 Sep 09.
Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 Oct 09. Exhibit E.	SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Dec 09.
Exhibit F.	Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Dec 09.
Exhibit G.	Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated3 Mar 10. Exhibit H.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Mar 10.