RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05553 COUNSEL: VFW HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required Active Service,” be changed to reflect “Medically Retired Due to Physical Disqualification.” ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged from the Air Force Reserve (AFR) due to medical conditions he incurred while on active duty. His conditions are now rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) at 80 percent for increased migraine severity, back pain, and depression. In Jan 01, he injured his back and developed severe migraines and extreme back problems. He was stationed at a remote Geographically Separated Unit (GSU) in Northern Germany, and did not have regular access to US military health care providers. He went to Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, to inquire about a physical since his career field was shrinking and he needed to retrain to stay in the Air Force. Based on his medical condition he could not retrain into another career field and had no other options but to separate. Not knowing about his options for a medical retirement, and having other geographical limitations, he moved forward with his release from active duty. After he separated from active duty, he joined the AFR. However, shortly thereafter, he was placed on medical waivers/profiles that did not allow him to participate. The VA granted him “service-connected” for his disabilities, however, a medical review board (sic) determined that he should be discharged for physical disqualification with an honorable discharge. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States; DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation; Court Order changing his name, current driver’s license and DVA Identification card, letters from the DVA, and various military personnel and medical records. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 5 Feb 97, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force. On 4 Dec 02, he was released from active duty and transferred to the AFR. On 28 Feb 05, he was discharged from the AFR due to physical disqualification. Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states that he found no AF Forms 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, or AF Forms 422, Physical Profile Serial Report. The applicant has not supplied medical documentation to support or substantiate an unfitting condition for the period of time he served on active duty (5 Feb 97 to 4 Dec 04). The Medical Consultant notes the applicant’s arguments regarding his inability to see a medical provider based on his being stationed in a remote location in Germany, nevertheless, the applicant was able to complete his active duty tour without limitations. The applicant states that his career field was “shrinking” and upward mobility was restricted, therefore, he voluntarily entered the AFR. Based upon the supplied service medical evidence, the Medical Consultant found no medical condition that established, [or should have], a cause and effect relationship with the termination of the applicant’s service or as an alternative reason for his release from active military service. The applicant has not shown a medical condition that would have interfered with his military service to the extent or duration that warranted placement on medical hold for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and processing through the military Disability Evaluation System (DES). The military DES, established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United State 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 only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. Department of Defense Instruction 1332.32, Physical Disability Evaluation, Enclosure 3, Part 3, Standards for Determining Unfitness Due to Physical Disability or Medical Disqualification, paragraph E3.P3.2.1, reads “A Service member shall be considered unfit when the evidence establishes that the member, due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating (hereafter called duties) to include duties during a remaining period of Reserve obligation.” It could not be established that the applicant was unable to reasonably perform his military duties and as such the Medical Consultant opines that the applicant has not meet the threshold for Medical Disability Retirement. Under Title 38, the DVA 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 retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for separation, or the intervening or transpired period since the date of separation. Title 38, which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not unfitting during military service or at the time of separation. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from military service and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for service- connected, but militarily non-unfitting conditions. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service connect medical condition may vary (improve or worsen, effecting future employability) over the lifetime of the veteran. The Medical Consultant is sensitive to the member’s potential need for continuing medical care. Therefore, the member is encouraged to utilize the resources of the DVA. The Medical Consultant notes the applicant’s case has not been timely filed and opines he has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice that warrants the desired change of record. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He explained that he injured his back in 2001 and subsequently developed extreme and often debilitating migraines. However, there was no mention or disclosure to the Air Force Board of his justification for the request, of which was in part due to his back injury and severe migraines which were incurred while on active duty, and were resulting factors for why he was ultimately discharged from the AFR. After his discharge from active duty, he was diagnosed by the DVA as having cyclothmia and agoraphobia, both of which were a direct result of the conditions under which he lived while stationed at a remote GSU in Germany, with a very small population of U.S. personnel. He would like the Board to consider the following: 1. Had he not been stationed at a remote GSU while on active duty, contending with the issues noted herein, it is reasonable to accept that he would not have developed cyclothymia and agoraphobia, two very debilitating conditions, which in part led to him being medically discharged and unable to continue serving in the AFR. He also may not have hurt his back and developed migraines, two other conditions that resulted in his medical discharge from the AFR. 2. Had he stayed on active duty after developing his medical conditions, it is plausible that he would later have been found medically disqualified. 3. Had he not been stationed at a remote GSU, where regular U.S. medical treatment was not as accessible, he may have been informed of his options for completing or requesting such medical documentations such as AF Forms 469 and AF Forms 422. 4. It is the simple bureaucracies that dictate, by not having completed a particular AF Form means he is ineligible for a correction of his original discharge. He believes that he has enough medical documentation to substantiate his request for a medical discharge. 5. The Board should consider the circumstances, the time in which he served, the remote location in which he served, his physical injuries, and subsequent diagnosis from serving in that very location and under those conditions, would have impacted his ability to continue on active duty. His only option was to leave active duty. Had he been afforded an MEB while on active duty, it is plausible he would have been medically discharged. The applicant’s complete response 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 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission to include his rebuttal statement, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion 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. As indicated by the BCMR Medical Consultant, there was no AF Forms 469 or AF Forms 422, within the supplied medical documentation that would support or substantiate an unfitting condition for the period he served on active duty. The military DES can only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically render a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. It could not be established by the evidence provided that the applicant was unable to perform his military duties at the time of his release from active duty. His DD Form 214 indicates that he was released from active duty due to completion of required term of service. Therefore, it is our opinion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 Docket Number BC-2012-05553 in Executive Session on 26 Sep 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2012-05553 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 25 Mar 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Apr 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Apr 13. Panel Chair