RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00092 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2Q (Personnel medically retired or discharged) be changed to RE code 1Q (Eligible to reenlist, career airmen with more than 20 years TAFMS, selected by the commander under the SRP, and either 13 months or less remain before original ETS, or the airmen are serving on an extension of enlistment (don’t separate airmen with this RE code)) or to a code that would allow him to reenlist. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his lower back injury, Air Force doctors chose to put his results forward for a medical board without allowing him sufficient time to heal. After the package was submitted, the physical therapy began easing the pain. Before he was discharged pending the medical evaluation board, his pain settled to around a two on the 1-10 scale. His pain is now at a zero, five months after discharge. If his case is approved, he understands that he would be obligated to refund the severance pay he received. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement and documents extracted from his military personnel records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 April 2000. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 15 January 2009 and referred his case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of Degenerative Disk Disease with chronic low back pain. On 6 May 2009, the IPEB found him unfit for further military service and recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 20%. The applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB. On 5 June 2009, the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be separated from active service for physical disability. He served 9 years, 3 months and 29 days on active duty with 3 years, 11 months and 18 days of Foreign service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the correct RE code for a person who is approved for a medical retirement or separation is 2Q. The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at time of separation. The DPSD complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant is questioning his discharge processing based on his pain now being at “0” (5 months after discharge). The applicant concurred with the IPEB’s findings and chose not to appeal their decision. The RE code is correct based on the SAF directed discharge for physical disability with severance pay. The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 11 June 2010, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the RE code assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions. In addition, the applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe that a change to his RE code to allow him to reenlist is warranted. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 an 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-2010-00092 in Executive Session on 21 September 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00092 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 January 2010, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 24 February 2010. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 9 April 2010. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 June 2010. Panel Chair