RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00673 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be granted a medical retirement in place of his Retired Reserve status. 2. He be promoted to the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt/E-7) and retired in said grade. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. He was unjustly denied a medical retirement. He was diagnosed with arthritis in his ankles, and repeatedly had to receive a waiver for his Fitness Assessments (FAs), but a medical review board never convened for his condition. He also developed a wrist injury which limited his range of motion and flexibility. AFI 10-248, Fitness Program, codifies his request to change his Retired status to Retired for Medical Limitations. AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards, lays out minimum ranges for retention. Had the Medical Squadron followed these AFIs, he would have been deemed medically limited and thus medically retired. 2. He was denied the right to be considered for promotion. If he had been given a permanent medical profile, he would have been eligible for promotion. He was denied his eligibility due to failure of his FAs. Had the AFI been followed, he would have able to sew on MSgt at the time he was slotted for. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Jul 82. On 15 Sep 85, the applicant was honorably discharged, and was credited with three years, two months, and seven days of active service. On 13 Sep 87, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve. On 1 Apr 99, the applicant was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt/E-6). According to the documentation submitted by the applicant, on 21 Feb 09 and again on 22 Oct 09, he received AF Form 469s, Duty Limiting Condition Report, recommending duty and mobility restrictions. On both forms the health care provider checked code “31 (illness or injury will be resolved within 31-365 days),” rather than “37 (medical defect/condition required MEB or PEB processing).” Under Reserve Order EK-4094, dated 25 May 10, the applicant was assigned to the Retired Reserve in the retired pay grade of E-6, effective 30 Sep 10. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/SG recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a medical retirement, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant was diagnosed with gout. A review of his medical records and the documentation he submitted with his application reveal he received repeated medical profiles preventing him from completing certain components of the Air Force FA, and appears to have been restricted from worldwide mobility status from 2008 and forward. However, this would not entitle him to any form of medical retirement. There is no evidence to show his gout is related to any period of service on active duty orders. There is no line-of-duty (LOD) determination in his record, nor is there a determination that he was unfit for duty. His gouty arthritis is not an LOD condition, and he makes no argument for service connection to his condition. Medical retirement is not offered for non-LOD conditions. A complete copy of the AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFRC/A1K recommends denial of the applicant’s request for his retired grade to be changed to MSgt, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant was not omitted from being promoted. An enlisted member’s promotion to the next higher grade is not based solely on a member meeting minimum promotion eligibility requirements. Instead, the Reservist must be submitted for and approved by the promotion authority, in order for such action to occur. Even if a permanent physical profile would have made him eligible for promotion, that does not constitute a promotion approval or subsequent approved promotion action. There has been no verifiable action to recommend for or promote the applicant by the appropriate promotion authority. The conditions required for promotion to the next higher grade were not met. A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 7 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00673 in Executive Session on 22 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00673 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Feb 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFRC/SG, dated 4 Sep 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 30 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Oct 14.