RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00174

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, for the period of service from 4 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 be amended to reflect he was medically discharged or his records show he was not discharged on 31 March 2004 but continued on orders through his MEB and medically discharged on 22 February 2007.   

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His DD Form 214 is erroneous.  His last DD Form 214 should document his service connected disability and that he was medically discharged.  If the DD Form 214 reflected his service connected disability, he would have received 100 percent of his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, instead of just 50 percent.  As a result, he has student loan bills in the amount of over $23,000 which he would not have if his DD Form 214 correctly reflected he was medically discharged.  He did not understand the process when applying for his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.  

He was injured in the Line of Duty (LOD) while in a period of active duty service from 4 April 2003 to 31 March 2004.  He was treated for pain management at Portsmouth Naval Hospital where he received epidurals and nerve cauterizations.  He also received pain management treatment and physical therapy at Langley AFB, VA.  

In 2004, his unit was deactivated and he received his DD Form 214 showing he was honorably discharged.  However, he was on a profile at the time and continued to receive treatment at Portsmouth Naval Hospital.  In 2007, he was evaluated by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) at Langley AFB and found unfit for continued service.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered this period of active duty service on 4 April 2003 and was honorably discharged on 31 March 2004 with a narrative reason for separation of “Reduction in Force/Demobilization.”

AF IMT 348, Line of Duty Determination, dated 5 December 2004, states the applicant developed back pain in July 2002 while stationed at Pope AFB, NC.  He was activated in April 2003 and assigned to build pallets and was doing a lot of bending, pushing and stretching.  He saw a military doctor at the 1st Medical Group at Langley AFB who diagnosed him with an umbilical hernia, at that time he was being seen for unresolved lower back pain.  The LOD further states the applicant had persistent back aches prior to his activation.  However, at the time, the back pain was not severe enough to adversely affect his ability to be activated.  On 21 November 2005, the applicant’s condition of chronic back pain and umbilical hernia was found in the LOD.   

According to an AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, dated 12 January 2006, the applicant was determined not worldwide qualified and the medical defect/condition required MEB or PEB processing.  

AF Form 618, Medical Board Report, dated 2 November 2006, reflects a MEB was convened on 26 October 2006, which recommended referral to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).

Per the AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, dated 26 January 2007, the IPEB recommended the applicant be Discharged With Severance Pay (DWSP) with a compensable percentage rating of 10 percent for his unfitting condition of chronic low back pain associated with sciatic pain; with degenerative disc disease and disc bulge at L3-4.   

AF IMT 1180, Action on Physical Evaluation Board Findings and Recommended Disposition, dated 31 January 2007 reflects the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the IPEB.  

According to AF IMT 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, Reserve Order A-171, dated 20 February 2007, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force Reserve effective 22 February 2007 in the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt, E-5).  Item 22, Remarks, states “SAF determined member is physically unfit for military service and directed discharge with severance pay under 10 U.S.C. § 1203 in the grade of SSgt under 10 U.S.C. § 1212.  Total retirement points: 4371.”

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.      

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/SG defers to AFRC/A1 as to whether the DD Form 214 can be updated after the fact when a condition incurred during a period of active duty at a later date results in medical separation from Reserve service.  No determination had been made that the applicant was medically disqualified as a result of a service connected condition at the time of his separation on 31 March 2004.  Service connection was established and a MEB was completed two years later resulting in discharge from the Air Force Reserve, a separation that did not require the issuance of a DD Form 214.

A LOD determination was accomplished and his injury was found in the LOD on 21 November 2005.  From the records provided, it is clear a MEB was convened on 26 October 2006.  The MEB report indicates the applicant was referred to the IPEB.  Of note, this was over two years after the applicant’s release from active duty status.  During this intervening period, it is presumed the applicant was still participating as a Reservist but was not on an active duty status.  His actual discharge order was not provided but his statement would indicate he was found unfit by the PEB and received a DWSP.  

A complete copy of the AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFRC/A1K recommends denial.  To grant relief would be contrary to DODI 1336.01, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214/215 Series).  The request should be denied because the DD Form 214 reflects the correct narrative reason and separation code for the release from the active duty period performed from 4 April 2003 to 31 March 2004.  Although the applicant was subsequently discharged from the Air Force Reserve based on a service connected medical condition, the DD Form 214 documents the period of active duty service with the Air Force Reserve, not the subsequent reason for discharge.  The applicant’s AF Form 100 states the reason for his separation as “SAF determined member is physically unfit for military service and directed discharge with severance pay under 10 U.S.C. 1203 in the grade of SSgt under 10 U.S.C. § 1212.”  

A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He provides a chronological order of his medical documents which reflect he should not have been taken off of active duty while receiving treatment.  He had an LOD and profile which showed he was not supposed to leave the area and perform duty while injured.  The dates show he was still being treated for over two years after his unit deactivated.  

He had to drive himself to Portsmouth Naval Hospital on six or more occasions and had to have another person drive him back to Richmond, VA because of the severity of his pain.  He made these trips without orders, travel pay or any kind of assistance.  During this time he was also being seen at Langley AFB for physical therapy and was eventually medically boarded.  

He is an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)  and could have used the DVA Vocational Rehabilitation Program for school but chose to use the Post-9/11 GI Bill due to his being on active duty for more than 30 days and having a service connected disability.  However, he only received 50 percent of his benefits because his DD Form 214 did not indicate he was medically separated.  Because of the DD Form 214 error, he received a school loan and has a bill for over $22,000 for which he has been granted forbearance while he attempts to get his record corrected.  

In an additional e-mail dated 16 June 2016, the applicant again states he should not have been taken off of active duty while getting treatment since he had an LOD.  He provides e-mail which states “Normally, LOD members are not allowed to separate from active duty prior to final determination.” He also provides profile paperwork and medical evidence showing he was not supposed to leave the area and perform duty while injured.  The e-mail communique dated 23 December 2004 from the 512th Aeromedical and Dental Squadron states “Based on the information provided by the applicant to his provider, the injury first occurred in July 2002 while he was on active duty, he was treated and no LOD was initiated.  He was subsequently activated by his Reserve unit in April 2003 where he exacerbated the condition and an LOD was still not initiated.  Upon deactivation, he inquired about problems with his condition.”   

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibits F and G.

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.  The applicant contends he was receiving treatment for an injury incurred in the LOD at the time of his discharge from active duty on 31 March 2004 and that he should have been continued on active duty through his MEB.  While we do not dispute the applicant was receiving medical treatment for his EPTS injury at the time of his discharge from active duty, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show he had an unfitting medical condition at the time of his discharge from active duty that required processing through the Military Disability Evaluation System, a prerequisite to a medical discharge.  Based on the preponderance of the evidence, it appears the applicant’s discharge from active duty on 31 March 2004 was in accordance with established directives and we found no evidence which would lead us to believe that his discharge was in error or contrary to the governing instructions.  Instead, the evidence reflects the applicant’s MEB was convened on 26 October 2006, over two years after his period of active duty service; and subsequently, on 26 January 2007, the IPEB recommended the applicant be DWSP from the Air Force Reserve for his unfitting condition of chronic back pain, a separation that did not require the issuance of a DD Form 214.  Accordingly, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFRC/A1K that the applicant’s DD Form 214 issued in conjunction with his discharge from active duty on 31 March 2004 is correct for the “snapshot” period of his service and that the applicant’s AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, correctly reflects his DWSP from the Air Force Reserve on 22 February 2007.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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-2015-00174 in Executive Session on 23 and 30 June 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00174 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 15 January 2015 and 
  29 December 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFRC/SGO, dated 18 December 2015.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 28 December 2015, 
			  w/atch. 
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 May 2016.  
	Exhibit F.  E-mail, Applicant, dated 7 June 2016, w/atchs. 
			  2016, w/atchs.
	Exhibit G.  E-mail, Applicant, dated 16 June 2016, w/atchs.