RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05115 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation of “Release Due to Demobilization” be changed to “Medical” Discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was diagnosed with Type II Diabetes and Hypertension while on active duty in 2001. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the Air Force Reserve on 18 Nov 97. On 23 Sep 01, the applicant was activated under Partial Mobilization Executive Order #13223, for the period 23 Sep 01 – 22 Sep 03, in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. On 14 Dec 01, the applicant was noted to have elevated blood pressure, during a routine dental examination. Subsequently, lab work confirmed a diagnosis of Type II Diabetes. On 20 Sep 02, according to documentation provided by the applicant, his commander recommended the applicant be released from his career field and the Air Force; noting his inability to deploy could affect the mission of the unit as all positions were deployable. On 22 Nov 02, the applicant’s Flight Surgeon recommended a finding of “In Line of Duty” via AF Form 348, Line of Duty Determination (LODD). On 19 Jun 03, a review of the applicant’s Informal LOD recommended a finding of Existed Prior to Service (EPTS) – LOD Not Applicable. On 14 Jul 03, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Release Due to Demobilization,” and was credited with 1 year, 9 months, and 22 days of active service. On 28 Jul 03, a legal review of the applicant’s LODD recommended a finding of EPTS - LOD Not Applicable. On 12 Aug 03, the approving authority disapproved the applicant’s “In Line of Duty” finding and approved the “EPTS - LOD Not Applicable finding.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/SG recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. A review of the applicant’s medical documentation reveals that he underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and was subsequently found to be physically unfit for continued military service due to a physical disability which existed prior to military service. The applicant was discharged without severance pay. The applicant’s case was appropriately adjudicated and he was found not eligible for consideration of severance pay. A complete copy of the AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his discharge to medical discharge (retirement). The Medical Consultant is aware that the individual Reservist, who develops an illness or sustains an injury affecting duty, while on active duty orders, will remain on active duty orders until all restrictions are lifted or the individual is processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES). However, in order to become DES eligible, the medical condition must be found In Line of Duty [and not due to misconduct or while absent without authority]; or if pre- existing, the individual must have achieved eight years of active service, in accordance with Title 10 United States Code, 1207a, to become DES eligible. It is apparent that medical officials determined the applicant’s disease entities predated his activation, noting that he entered active service on 23 Sep 01 and that his disease entities were discovered on 14 Dec 01; and were likely longer-standing for many more months to years prior to the applicant’s activation. The Consultant is sensitive to the fact that a tumor was discovered and treated, which may have been the cause of the applicant’s Hypertension. Again, there is no proof or evidence that the applicant’s aldosteronoma developed during this first three months of activation between Sep and Dec 2001. The Consultant is also aware of the legal burden of proof of “clear and unmistakable” evidence before determining that a medical condition existed prior to service, for members performing duties of 31 days or more. However, despite the fact that few decisions in medicine are clear and unmistakable, the Consultant opines, through sound medical principles, it is unlikely that the applicant’s Diabetes and Hypertension first began during the first three months of his activation; or was caused or permanently aggravated by his military service. The applicant is advised that future decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs, through its appellate procedures, may be considered by the Military Department, but are not binding; as the reverse has also been stated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof to warrant the desired change of the record. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 31 Aug 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 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; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR 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 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-2014-05115 in Executive Session on 8 Oct 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-05115 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Dec 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFRC/SG, dated 19 Feb 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFBCMR, Medical Consultant, dated 25 Aug 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Aug 15. 1 2