RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02386

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATED: 5 DECEMBER 2005

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code “2Q” be changed so that he may reenlist into the Armed Forces.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has medical documentation stating that he never had asthma and chronic scrotal pain that does not exist.

In support of his application, applicant submits a copy of his medical evaluation and a copy of his MEPS medical evaluation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 3 October 1996 for a term of 4 years. 

On 14 August 2002, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened and the applicant was diagnosed with mild intermittent asthma and chronic scrotal pain. The MEB recommended the applicant’s case be referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  

On 11 October 2002, an IPEB convened and established diagnoses of chronic scrotal pain status post left orchiectomy, mild intermittent asthma, and adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. The IPEB found the applicant unfit because of physical disability (chronic scrotal pain status post left orchiectomy), that the disability was incurred while the applicant was entitled to receive basic pay, that the disability was incurred in the line of duty, that the disability was ratable under VA Diagnostic Code 8730 at 10 percent, and that the disability may be permanent. The IPEB recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay. The applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB.

On 17 October 2002, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be separated from active duty service for physical disability under the provisions of 10 USC 1203, with severance pay.  

On 13 November 2002, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3212 (Disability, Severance Pay). He was credited with 6 years, 1 month, and 11 days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted. The prepondence of the medical evidence shows no error in the disability discharge of the applicant and assignment of a RE code of “2Q” that prevents reenlistment. Although the persistent scrotal pain that was the primary stated reason for unfitness for continued military service has resolved, the medical evidence indicates the applicant’s pain was inextricably intertwined with an Adjustment Disorder that significantly interfered with duty and also either caused or exacerbated respiratory symptoms. Based on the totality of the evidence of the record, the Medical Consultant opines that the applicant is a poor risk for reenlistment based on his history of recurrent depressed mood and diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder for reasons previously outlined and concludes that action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that he would like the Board to take into consideration his injury, the medication he was on for over a year and the fact he was not a problem in the Air Force until he was severely injured. He will like to ask the Board to talk to his previous commanders and supervisors. They will tell the Board he was an exceptional airman, that he performed his job with honor and dignity. He thinks the recommendation is unfair. Every other service wants him to join and he has passed the military physical with flying colors. He has spent time and money seeing specialist in order for the Board to have the facts in order for his reenlistment code to be revised so he can reenlist in the Air Force. The Air Force needs engineers and he is willing to reenlist.  

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his RE code issued at the time of his separation should be changed.  Applicant’s contentions were duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record.  We agree with the opinions and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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 relief sought.

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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 Docket Number BC-2004-02386 in Executive Session on 9 August 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 05, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 Jun 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 05.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, undated.