RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02722

	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to include decorations, medals, badges and citations awarded to him during his active duty service. (Administratively Resolved)

His Reentry (RE) code of 4D, be changed to RE code 1M, making him eligible to reenlist.

Reconsider the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) finding, returning him to duty 10 Apr 14, and medically retire him.   

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been medically retired for the unfitting conditions found by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to include Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Testicular Cancer, and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.  He is now cancer free and physically fit to continue military service.  He served honorably and has an exemplary military record.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 Feb 15, the applicant was involuntarily discharged with an Honorable character of service by reason of Reduction in Force.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C, D, E, and F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends no action required regarding the requested relief of correcting the applicant’s DD Form 214, to reflect the decorations, medals, badges and citations awarded to him during his active duty service.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s records they were able to determine several Air Force Medals and/or Ribbons should have been awarded for his service from 16 Feb 00 to 16 Feb 15 and were not reflected in his records. Administrative correction of his official military personnel record will be completed, to include an initial issue of the Nuclear Deterrence Operations Service Medal with N device (NDOSM w/N device).  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2SSM (Reenlistments) recommends denying the application regarding changing the applicant’s RE code to 1M.  The applicant was forced to separate based on reaching the High Year Tenure (HYT) of 15 years for his grade of staff sergeant (E-5).  He is asking for a RE code of 1M--(Eligible to reenlist, Second Term or Career Airmen not yet considered under the Selective Reenlistment Program.  Do not separate Airmen with this RE code).  However, the RE code 1M clearly states not to separate Airmen with that RE code.  The applicant was not eligible to be considered for reenlistment based on his HYT of 15 years for his grade of E-5.  HYT is defined as “The maximum date an Airman may remain on active duty, based on grade and years of service, as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force,” in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment In The United States Air Force.  The next grade of technical sergeant (E-6) has a HYT of 20 years of active service.  The RE code of 4D is the correct RE code for the applicant.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denying the application regarding returning to duty to allow the applicant to be “medically retired for unfitting conditions found by the DVA to include PTSD, Testicular Cancer, and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.  The applicant has supplied two conflicting appeals for the Board’s consideration; the first of which he desired a medical retirement, based upon disability ratings received by the DVA, and the other, on which he declares that he is now fit to return to duty.  The DVA operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service- incurred, without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s ability to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, and rating, nor the narrative reason for separation.   The applicant’s medical records revealed that the unfitting conditions found by the DVA, were identified, but not proven militarily unfitting at the time of his release from military service.  Military accessions standards are more stringent than retention standards for a currently serving member.  In accordance with DoDI 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services, the applicant does not fit the accession standards.  The Medical Consultant opines that a determination as to whether the applicant’s mental health diagnoses should have been considered in the initial Review In Lieu Of (RILO) Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) as disqualifying or unfitting or whether it should not be an impediment to duty, in his most recent appeal for fitness, are best addressed by the Mental Health Consultant.  The Board must bear in mind the applicant was not discharged due to a medical condition, but due an established HYT date.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.  

BCMR Psychiatric Consultant recommends denying the application regarding his request to return to duty and his request for a medical retirement.  The applicant was treated by mental health providers during his military service, there is no evidence that a determination was made to suggest the applicant’s mental health condition interfered with his ability to carry out the duties of his office, grade, rank, and rating; as evident by his excellent EPRs.  Specifically, there is no evidence that the applicant had a medical condition so severe of as to disqualify him from worldwide duty to the extent or duration that warranted a Medical Hold and referral for Medical Evaluation Board/Physical Evaluation Board MEB/PEB) processing.  The applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.  

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 30 Apr 18 for comment (Exhibit G), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

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 error and injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendations of AFPC/DP2SSM (Reenlistments), BCMR Medical Consultant, and the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant, and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not support the applicant’s request to change his RE code, and return to active duty for a medical retirement.  We note AFPC/DP3SP will administratively correct the applicant’s record to reflect all of decorations, medals, badges and citations awarded to him during his active duty service.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records beyond that rendered administratively.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed 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-2016-02722 in Executive Session on 13 Aug 18:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149s, w/atchs, dated 7 Jul 16 and 27 Nov 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, received 3 Jan 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, received 1 May 17.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 31 May 17.
Exhibit F:	Advisory, opinion, BCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated 17 Apr 18.
Exhibit G:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 30 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, pertaining to Docket Number BC-2016-02722.