RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03250

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge should have been a medical discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told for years his medical records were lost due to a fire and recently was told he should have had a medical discharge.  His medical records show that his right wrist was damaged and operated on twice and loss of motor control resulted.  He should have received a medical discharge.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 11 Aug 66.

On 13 Aug 67, the applicant was seen by a medical officer for a laceration to the right hand.  

On an undated statement, the applicant requested separation from the Air Force under the provision of AFM 39-10, paragraph 3-8j, for the purpose of enrolling as a full-time student in college.  

On 13 Apr 70, the college registrar certified the applicant was accepted as a full-time student.

On 11 May 70, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, was credited with 3 years, 9 months, and 1 day of active service, and provided an early release to further his education.  

Effective 12 May 70, he was transferred to the Air Force Reserve until 10 Aug 72.  

On 19 May 75, he enlisted for four years with the Air Force Reserve. 

On 6 Aug 75, he was determined to be qualified for worldwide duty.

On 18 May 79, he was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve.

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.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice stating the applicant has not met the burden of proof to warrant the desired change of the record as well as his appeal is also untimely.  

In reviewing the service medical documents in the case, the applicant sustained a laceration to the wrist on or about 13 Aug 67 that subsequently required surgery and follow-on care to the median nerve and scar tissue.  On 21 Oct 68, he was referred to the Hand Service at Wilford Hall Medical Center to reassess the median nerve repair.  The occupational therapist measured the applicant’s dexterity and found no impairment of hot and cold discrimination, but there was some astereognosis (the inability to identify an object by active touch of the hands without other sensory input, such as visual or sensory information) over the median nerve distribution, “but he does discriminate texture.”  On 4 May 70, prior to the applicant’s release from active military service, he completed the Serviceman’s Statement Concerning Application for Compensation from the Veterans Administration, and signed the document with an “X” placed in the box to indicate, “I do not wish to file an application for disability compensation at this time.  I understand I may do so at a later date.”  Additionally, his affiliation with military service did not end with his separation from active duty as his record shows evidence of Reserve service from 1970 to 1972.   Also noted is the result of a Classification Board Action, which convened on 19 Apr 75.  The 5-member board noted the applicant’s 4 years of prior active service and 2 years of Reserve service, and noting he was “last discharged from the USAFR in August 1972,” recommended he be enlisted in the U.S. Air Force Reserve in the grade of Sgt (E-4), and that he be awarded the Primary AFSC 43151E.  An Enlistment Contract for a term of 4 years was entered upon by the applicant, with a date of enlistment/induction of 19 May 75 and his Physical Profile Serial Report [P U L H E S] at the time was listed as “1 1 1 1 1 1,” worldwide qualified in all functional categories.  A Report of Medical Examination for initial flying qualification was also conducted a Charleston AFB, SC on 8 Jun 75.  The examining provider also noted an “11 cm transverse surgical scar across the heel of the [applicant’s] left hand.”  There was “full range of motion” with “some numbness, 2nd and 3rd fingers.”  The applicant was found medically qualified for Flying Class III status.  While it may be unclear which of the applicant’s periods of service he believes warranted a medical reason for discharge, the preponderance of evidence does not support such a course of action for either of his periods of service.   The applicant is reminded that the Military Department, operating under Title 10, United States Code, only offers compensation for an illness or injury that is the cause for career termination.  The Medical Consultant opines military officials acted within their authority to retain and cross-train the applicant and/or reclassify him under an alternate Air Force Specialty Code.

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Mar 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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 AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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 issues 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-2015-03250 in Executive Session on 16 Aug 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jul 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 10 Dec 15.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Mar 16.