RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02206

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be evaluated by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and be medically separated.

By amendment at Exhibit F, he requests to be medically retired.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like a review of his medical and personnel records to determine if his discharge from the Air Force was proper.  He believes he should have been medically separated because he was diagnosed and treated for cellulitis, which should have qualified him for a medical discharge or participation in the MEB or PEB process.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, as an Air Force reservist, initially entered active duty in the Air Force on 30 April 1984.  

On 26 June 1984, a Medical Certificate, indicates the applicant had a diagnosis of “cellulitis” and that he was able to return to normal military duties.

On 28 June 1984, the applicant’s AF Form 348, Line of Duty Determination, reflects he was diagnosed with “CELLULITIS, RIGHT MEDIAL KNEE, LYMPHANGITIS, RIGHT THIGH” and it was found to be In Line of Duty.

On 1 August 1984, the applicant, as an Air Force reservist, was released from active duty, and returned to his home unit due to completion of initial active duty training, and was credited with 3 months and 2 days of active service. 

According to Reserve Order 00-313 (barely legible), dated 17 November 1988, reflects the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve effective 23 October 1988.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFDD recommends the application be reviewed by a Medical member of the Board for Correction of Military Records to determine whether further review by the Physical Evaluation Board is warranted.  DPFDD notes that the application was not timely filed.  

The applicant contends a medical condition (cellulitis) he suffered while on active duty should have been referred to a Medical Evaluation Board for entry into the Disability Evaluation Process (DES).  The supporting documents provided by the applicant do not reveal a medical condition that would have prevented him from performing his assigned duties.  Indeed, a Medical Certificate dated 18 June 1984 indicates he was able to return to normal military duty upon release from the hospital.  To be referred to the DES, a service member must be diagnosed with a condition that renders him/her unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFDD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant concurs with the AFPC/DPFDD recommendation and recommends denying the applicant’s request to be medically discharged.  The Medical Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record.  The applicant’s case has also not been timely filed.  As stated by the AFPC/DPFD, individuals are referred for MEB and possible Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) must have evidence of an illness or injury that precludes retention on military service; specifically, that prevents the member from reasonably performing the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  Thus, the fact that an individual has an illness or injury does not automatically warrant a medical basis for discharge.  Based upon the applicant’s response to treatment, it was likely determined that he did not have a permanent impairment that warranted a Medical Hold for processing through the DES.  Injuries, such as acute sprains, and soft tissue infections are not expected to result in a permanent impairment following treatment.  Thus, even if extended on active duty for further observation and treatment, it is unlikely the applicant’s medical condition would have resulted in a medical discharge.

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He is of the opinion that the medical condition discussed in the medical advisory opinion does not consider the problem that the infection caused.  It is his understanding that he developed a chronic infectious disease/immune disorder and nutritional deficiencies.  These deficiencies have made him unable to perform the duties of an air cargo specialist due to a problem with his lower extremities and having a blood disorder.  Based on the information provided in the attached documentation, he should have a rating of 100% due to his Lymphatic Filariasis and Bartonellosis.  He provides 103 pages of documentation to support his position that his primary diagnosis was Lymphangitis and not Cellulitis and he should have been medically retired from the United States Air Force.

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

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

1. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years prior to receipt of the application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more than three years prior to receipt of the application.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.

2.  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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02206 in Executive Session on 15 March 2016 and 28 September 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 May 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 16 Dec 15.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
			  18 Dec 15.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Dec 15.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, 21 Jan 16, w/atchs.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.