RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-03309

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His medical records be evaluated to determine he be medically retired, versus voluntarily separated.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A medical team unjustly evaluated him; he should have met a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  The main reason he separated from the military was due to medical problems.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 30 Aug 05.

On 4 Feb 16, the applicant completed his Separation History and Physical Examination (SHPE), medically cleared for separation.

On 16 May 16 the applicant was honorably discharged, having served ten years, eight months, and seventeen months of active service.  
 
For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denying the application.  A review of the applicant’s supplied Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), shows consistently outstanding duty performance and contributions to the mission, from the time he entered military service until his final reporting period.  A review of the applicant’s 1827 pages of medical documentation discloses he clearly had several chronic medical conditions, which at least twice warranted referral for a Deployment Availability Working Group (DAWG) and consideration for a possible MEB.  However, either through demonstrated duty performance, a lack of sufficient impediment to duty, and motivation to serve, the applicant was consistently returned to duty following his DAWG reviews.  Although diagnosed and treated for a number of chronic and some new onset, medical conditions, none of these were found to have adversely affected the applicant’s ability to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, and rating as a mental health technician; and neither imposed an inordinate use of resources to retain him nor imposed a decided risk to his health, the safety of others, and his unit’s mission.  Thus, while it may appear counterintuitive for a collection of medical conditions, resulting in award of a combined disability rating of 90% by the Department of Veterans Affairs, would result in retention; the Medical Consultant found no objective evidence that established, or should have established, a cause and effect relationship between the termination the applicant’s military service and a medical condition.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C. 

AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant recommends denying the application.  The Psychiatric Consultant fully concurs with the assessment of the BCMR Medical Consultant.  While there may have been a nexus with an event during military service, no evidence is presented to demonstrate that his medical or mental health condition were unfitting at the time of the applicant’s discharge.  The military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically 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 “snap-shot”  time of separation, and not based on post-service progression of disease or injury.  The additional documentation submitted by the applicant is post-service and therefore is not applicable in the fitness assessment of the applicant at the time of the military service.  Additionally, the newly diagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) would not alter the outcome of the applicant’s discharge, as the same fitness standards would be applicable.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 19 Sep 18 for comment (Exhibit E), 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 the AFBCMR Medical and Psychiatric Consultants and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Specifically, medical documentation disclosed the applicant clearly had several chronic medical conditions, however, no evidence was presented to demonstrate that his medical or mental health condition were unfitting at the time of the applicant’s discharge.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

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.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

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-2016-03309 in Executive Session on 30 Oct 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 149, w/atchs, dated 12 Aug 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Dec 16. .
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated 6 Aug 18.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 19 Sep 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.