RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01333 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His release from active duty be changed to a medical discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his discharge, he was unable to work full days due to a back condition from a service connected injury. He provides copies of AF Forms 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, dated 14 July and 14 August 2014 which prove he was unable to perform duties and should have been medically discharged. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 12 August 2008, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force and was released from active duty on 29 September 2014 with a narrative reason for separation of “Reduction in Force.” According to a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision dated 27 May 2015, the applicant was rated at a combined disability rating of 30 percent, 20 percent for degenerative disc disease and 10 percent for left wrist strain, effective 30 September 2014. 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: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. A review of the applicant’s records reveal he was placed on the Quality Force Review Board (QFRB) roster as a result of negative quality indicators; specifically, Article 15 punishment resulting in a reduction in grade. The QFRB which convened on 5 May 2014 conducted a comprehensive review of the applicant’s entire record and he was not selected for retention. As a result, he was required to separate on the mandatory separation date of 29 September 2014. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The IMA Medical Consultant recommends denial. The applicant’s medical records indicate he had an established history of lumbar disc (L4-L5) disease which had been present for approximately three years; reported as a work related injury in 2012 while deployed which resulted in chronic back pain. Medical records document various treatment modalities to include prescription medication and physical therapy. In October 2013, the applicant received a run restriction in the fitness assessment. However, he was required to participate in the one mile walk, push up and sit up components. A separation physical completed on 27 August 2014 determined the applicant to be worldwide qualified to separate from active duty without limitations and he was separated in September 2014. To determine whether an error or injustice occurred, a few questions must be evaluated. These include (1) does sufficient medical evidence exist to support an unfitting health condition as a potential reason for service termination? and (2) was the applicant unjustly denied a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and severance pay or medical retirement? Working on the premise that the back injury occurred while deployed as reported, the question is whether the back injury, treatment and the resulting signs and symptoms experienced by the applicant justify a medical reason for service termination. Records indicate the applicant had a L5-S1 fusion procedure in May 2014 and continued to participate in physical therapy. Following an uncomplicated recovery period, evidenced by continued worldwide qualification and release from active duty without limitations, the medical reviewer concludes that the chronic back condition, which was treated surgically, was not of such sustained severity that it rendered him unable to perform his assigned duties. Following surgery, the applicant’s progress followed an anticipated course of uneventful recovery and did not represent a medical reason for service termination. A MEB would not be appropriate in this context. Addressing the applicant’s implicit desire for a medical separation/retirement, the Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under 10 U.S.C. only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered the member unfit for continued military service and were the cause of career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. However, operating under a different set of laws, 38 U.S.C., the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition with an established nexus with military service, without regard to its proven or demonstrated impact upon a member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or the narrative reason for release from military service. A complete copy of the IMA 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 28 October 2015 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 an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find that it supports a determination that the applicant was improperly separated from active duty in 2014. While the applicant contends he was not fit to perform duties and was separated from active duty without an MEB, he has not provided substantial evidence showing that he had an unfitting medical condition that would have required his 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 was in accordance with established directives and we found no evidence which would lead us to believe that his separation was in error or contrary to the governing Air Force instructions. The applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the IMA Medical Consultant and we did not find the evidence provided sufficient to overcome his assessment of the case. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has suffered from an error or injustice. 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-2015-01333 in Executive Session on 8 December 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 March 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 13 August 2015. Exhibit D. Memorandum, BCMR IMA Medical Reviewer, Dated 27 October 2015. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 October 2015.