RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01515

							COUNSEL: 

							HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was diagnosed with multiple disabilities which he incurred during active duty service during his tour of duty in the Persian Gulf, to include depressive and anxiety disorders, chronic sinus and respiratory issues, chronic fatigue and chronic pain disorders.  He is rated 100% for his service connected disabilities and has not been able to maintain gainful employment since his discharge.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Jan 93, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force as a technical sergeant.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denying the application.   

The Disability Evaluation System (DES) can only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences or progression of disease.  Additionally, unfitness for military service will be determined on the basis of the preponderance of the objective evidence in the record. Although the applicant has been assigned service connection and compensation for a number of medical conditions, the service evidence does not reflect that any of the medical conditions awarded by the VA interfered with his ability to perform his duties or would trigger a Medical Evaluation Board and referral to a Physical Evaluation Board, rendering him unfit and assignment of medical retirement.  Moreover, although the applicant has been given service-connection for a mental disorder, there is no evidence that the applicant was diagnosed with a mental disorder during his military service, nor if diagnosed, evidence that it interfered with his retainability or should have been a contributory cause for career termination.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 13 Dec 16 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 3 Jan 17.  The applicant contended the VA’s award of, and subsequent increases to, his disabilities attest to their service connection from his active duty period.  Had he benefitted from a traditional active duty base and adequate time to seek treatments and counseling, his mental health disorder and fibromyalgia disorders would have led to a medical discharge.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Mental Health Consultant recommended denying the application.  

Concurred with the Medical Consultant: the evidence is insufficient to warrant desired change of the record.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 26 Feb 18 for comment (Exhibit G), and the applicant replied on 4 Apr 18.  The applicant contends his case is being considered on what may be perceived as disqualifying, while qualifying factors are not addressed.  He reiterates that had he been active duty he would have received a proper disability evaluation and discharge, and since his conditions were incurred from his active service he should receive a medical discharge.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  1.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the BCMR Medical and Mental Health Consultants and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:  

The applicant be informed that the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:  

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5., considered Docket Number BC-2016-01515 in Executive Session on 1 May 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:  Application, DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 16.
Exhibit B:  Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  Advisory Opinion, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 9 Dec 16.
Exhibit D:  Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 13 Dec 16.
Exhibit E:  Applicant’s Response, dated 3 Jan 17.
Exhibit F:  Additional Advisory Opinion, BCMR Mental Health, dated 20 Feb 18.
Exhibit G:  Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 26 Feb 18.
Exhibit H:  Additional Applicant’s Response, dated 4 Apr 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.