RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2016-01938

						COUNSEL:  

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect medical discharge due to service-connected disability.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he enlisted in the Air Force in 1973, he was physically fit, as confirmed by two separate physicians – one civilian and one military.  He had previously separated his right shoulder in 1971 but had it surgically repaired.  Both his civilian medical record and his military exam showed he was completely healed and he passed all medical tests prior to being sent to Basic Training in San Antonio, Texas.

While at Basic Training, another Airman, running full speed, collided with him, causing the applicant to fall to the ground, landing on his right shoulder which resulted in re-separation of the shoulder and injury to his lower back.  He was given a waiver for limited use of his right arm, but returned to the military hospital due to extreme pain.  He was told the shoulder would need to be surgically repaired and was released from service.  The military medical records he received afterward were accurate but lacked details on how his shoulder was injured (fall after collision with other Airman).

He was awarded a 20 percent rating for service-connected disability by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and has been receiving benefits since he applied in 1977.  He applied for, and received, a Certificate of Eligibility (COE) for a DVA home loan in 1980, but did not use it.  He only became aware of a problem with his DD Form 214 when he re-applied for a COE in 2015 and it was denied.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 Jan 73, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.

On 15 Jan 73, a medical board convened at Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, medically disqualified the applicant from continued service, determining the condition existed prior to service.

On 18 Jan 73, the applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge and credited with 0 years, 0 months, and 17 days active service.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice.

According to the applicant’s record, while in Basic Training, the applicant reported to the medical authorities complaining of pain and weakness in his right shoulder.  He was prescribed medication and provided an exercise waiver.  Approximately a week later, the applicant returned to the Orthopedic Clinic complaining of shoulder pain.  On 15 Jan 73, a medical board convened and determined the pre-existing shoulder pain and surgery had become chronic without any aggravating exercise.  The physical defect precluded full utilization in military service and the applicant should be discharged.

The applicant requested discharge after being advised by his commander that he did not meet minimum standards of enlistment in the Air Force.  The commander and base discharge authority approved the request.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice.

There is no controversy regarding the applicant’s pre-existing shoulder condition which required surgical treatment.  The question is if there was permanent aggravation of the pre-existing condition above and beyond its expected natural progression.  Although the applicant contends he was pushed from behind by another Airman running full speed, which caused him to fall onto his previously injured shoulder, there is no reference in any of the supplied medical professional entries of injury after entering military service, except for a vague entry regarding “residual right A-C separation” followed by the letter “p” with a line on top – to mean “after trauma.”  This medical consultant could not determine whether the provider was referring to the applicant’s original injury or subsequent trauma after entering military service.

The military medical professionals determined the condition existed prior to service without permanent service aggravation.  If there was an injurious incident reported by the applicant, a reasonably-minded physician would have responsibly documented this information in the medical record.  Similarly, a reasonably-minded patient would have disclosed the details of the incident so it would be documented in the record.

The medical consultant found the preponderance of evidence suggests the applicant’s shoulder complaints after entering military service were a manifestation of its expected clinical expression or natural progression.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The advisories are incorrect in that he was perfectly fit when he enlisted in the Air Force.  He provided medical records from both civilian and military doctors stating he was physically sound and good to go into service.

His right shoulder was repaired a year and a half prior to enlistment and he was in perfect health and fully recovered.  His first week in Basic Training was flawless, with no issues of any kind.  It was not until he was knocked to the ground and landed on his right shoulder that problems began.  He did inform his commander of the incident and his shoulder and lower back pain, and was directed to Wilford Hall Medical Center.

The medical consultant’s advisory refers to entries regarding back strain, which the attending doctor told him was consistent with an awkward fall.  The doctor was not referring to his previous condition as he mentioned the “mild spasm” due to back strain which was never an issue previously, and only occurred after the fall.  He does not know why the doctor did not use the word “fall”, but instead used the word “trauma” which means the same thing.

It was not possible for him to complete Basic Training with a separated shoulder and he was advised the only option was surgery.  If he decided against surgery, he would be discharged with full benefits as being service-connected.  He has received benefits since discharge.

He waited 44 years before requesting a correction because he was receiving his benefits for service-connected disability and did not understand what the language on his DD Form 214 meant until his COE was disapproved.

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit 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.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal, in judging the merits of the case.  However, other than his own assertions, he has presented no evidence of an error on the part of the Air Force or that he was treated differently than others similarly situated.  Subsequently, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 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-2016-01938 in Executive Session on 8 Aug 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01938 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpt from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Aug 16, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 30 Mar 17
Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Advisor, dated
            24 Apr 17.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 May 17, w/atchs.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 25 May 17.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations regarding AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01938, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.