RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04187 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge (honorable) should be changed to a medical retirement. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have received a medical retirement, since he was not allowed to re-enlist due to medical problems. He was told that he was "not fit to travel worldwide and advised to contact the VA," (Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)). While he notes that he was not allowed to reenlist as a result of turning down a three-year assignment to Panama, he should have been informed of his rights to receive a medical retirement. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, Report of Transfer or Discharge, issued in conjunction with his 23 Feb 73 separation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: After serving over three years, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force, on 25 Feb 69, for a period of four years. He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt/E-5), with an effective date and Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 Jul 69. He was credited with seven years and five months of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, stating, in part, that the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. He notes that based upon the limited available medical documentation, he is of the opinion that the applicant indeed had a medical condition (Asthma) that was listed as potentially disqualifying for continued service. However, despite this diagnosis the applicant carried a physical profile reflecting that his medical condition did not interfere with his worldwide qualification and ability to perform his military duties. It appears that either in late 1971 or very early 1972, a decision was made to assign a P-4 profile (non-worldwide qualified) with subsequent MEB processing. Following a review of the applicant's case by senior medical officials, the profile restriction was lifted and changed back to a P-2; indicating that the applicant was retained on duty to complete his term of enlistment. Under today's standards he would have likely been reassigned a P-3 profile. The Consultant has not been provided factual evidence of other possible reasons the applicant was allegedly denied re-enlistment; however, this falls within the prerogative of the commanding officer. Additionally, while the applicant was able to complete his term of enlistment under retention standards, in order to qualify for reenlistment the Consultant opines he would have been required to meet the more stringent accession standards. Certainly, the applicant's performance reports are reflective of his capability to perform the mission. The Military Disability Evaluation System, operating under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) is charged with maintaining a fit and vital fighting force and, by law, can only offer compensation for disease(s) or illness (es) which cause career termination. In the case under review, it is apparent that the applicant was allowed to complete his contractual term of enlistment, despite his medical condition. The Air Force then allegedly disallowed his re-entry for medical reasons. While this may seem a bit disingenuous, it is consistent with established policies. The applicant's attention is directed to an extract from Department of Defense Instruction 6130.03, Medical Standards for Enlistment, Induction, or Appointment in the Military Services, addressing conditions disqualifying for service entry (or re-entry); specifically under disorders of the Lung, Chest Wall, Pleura, and Mediastinum, paragraph d, which reads: "Airway hyper responsiveness including asthma (493.xx), reactive airway disease, exercise-induced bronchospasm (519.11) or asthmatic bronchitis (493.90), reliably diagnosed and symptomatic after the 13th birthday" is disqualifying for service entry. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Jul 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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, the applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical Consultant and we did not find the evidence provided, sufficient to overcome his assessment of the case. The applicant points to the service- connection determination and makes the point that he was told to seek assistance from the DVA to support his claim. In this respect, we note, the Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES) only offers compensation for the medical condition that is the cause for career termination; and then only to the degree of impairment present at the time of final disposition or military separation. Conversely, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) operates under a separate set of laws which takes into account the fact that a person can acquire physical conditions during military service that, although not unfitting at the time of separation, may later progress in severity and alter the individual's lifestyle and future employability. Thus, the two systems represent a continuum of medical care and disability compensation that starts with entry on to active duty and extends for the life of the veteran. Therefore, we agree with the recommendation and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-04187 in Executive Session on 23 August 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 8 Jul 11, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Jul 11.