RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02277
				(CASE 2)
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 NOVEMBER 2005

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed to medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The VA rated him at 30 percent for the conditions that ultimately led him to be discharged from the military due to substandard performance.  He was unable to maintain performance in his specialty due to pain and discomfort.  A great injustice was done regarding his discharge because his painful medical condition did not allow him to perform his military duties properly.

No supporting documentation was submitted.  The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 May 1974, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, and was voluntarily ordered to extend active duty on 23 May 1974.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of first lieutenant effective and with a date of rank of 5 June 1977.

The following is a resume of his Officer Effectiveness Reports, commencing with the report closing 31 August 1976:

		PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

		31 Aug 76		3-X-X
		27 Feb 77		2-2-2
		31 Aug 77		3-2-3
		28 Feb 78		3-4-4
		28 Feb 79		4-4-4
		31 Aug 79		4-4-4
On 26 November 1978, the applicant’s commander notified him of Initiation of Action Under AFR 36-3 (involuntary discharge) because of his failure to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required by an officer of his grade; his failure to properly discharge assignments commensurate with his grade and experience; his progressive downward trend in duty performance resulting in an unacceptable record of efficiency; his apathy and defective attitude toward the responsibilities required of an officer; and, his failure to conform to prescribed standards of military deportment.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of notification, consulted counsel, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  On 21 March 1979, a board of officers convened and determined that the applicant should show cause for retention in the Air Force.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of notification and his right to appear with and/or be represented by counsel.  On 31 July 1979, the applicant waived the scheduled 36-3 Retention Board.  The group Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient.  This officer concurred with the proposed advice, opinions and recommendations to separate the applicant from military service.  The Major Air Commander forwarded the case for review with the recommendation that the applicant’s waiver be accepted, that he not be retained, and that he be honorably discharged from all appointments.  On 22 October 1979, by direction of the President, the Secretary of the Air Force ordered that the appointment of the applicant be terminated pursuant to Section 1162, Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Regulation 3603, that he be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate, and that any temporary appointment and commission in the United States Air Force be terminated.

On 8 November 1979, the applicant was involuntarily discharged under honorable conditions by reason of “Board Action (Substandard Performance).”  He had served 5 years, 4 months and 28 days of total active service.

On 28 January 1987, this Board denied a request by the applicant for a change to the reason and authority for his separation.  A summary of the evidence considered by the Board and the rationale for its decision is set forth in the Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR BC-1986-04034, which is attached at Exhibit E.

Based on his claim filed on 22 May 2001, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) issued a rating decision granting the applicant service connection for the conditions, right foot plantar surface callus formation with tenderness, rated at 10%; Left Foot plantar surface callus formation with tenderness, rated at 10%; and, Pilonidal cystectomy scar, ratable at 10%.  A combined compensable rating of 30% was assigned.  A bilateral factor of 1.9% was added for the right and left foot conditions.  Service connection was denied for the condition, bilateral pes planus, which was determined to have existed prior to service. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant opines no change in the records is warranted.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant affirms evidence of the record clearly shows that the applicant’s service connected medical conditions were not the cause of duty performance leading to discharge and that the conditions did not render him unfit for duty and did not warrant referral for evaluation in the disability evaluation system.  The BCMR Medical Consultant concludes action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment on 6 June 2005.  As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  Evidence has not been presented that would lead us to believe the applicant’s discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing directive.  The reasons discharge proceedings were initiated against the applicant are well documented in the record.  His contentions concerning this issue were assessed by the BCMR Medical Consultant.  The applicant has provided no evidence that successfully refutes this assessment or causes us to believe that, at the time of his separation, he was physically unfit to perform his duties.  This being the case, we have no basis to find the applicant should have been discharged due to “medical reasons.”  Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 BC-2004-02277 in Executive Session on 28 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jun 04.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 3 Jun 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jun 05.