RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00733 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to active duty, and medically discharged in the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was hospitalized on numerous occasions to include an emergency room visit and was misdiagnosed at each of these visits. He was taken to a DVA Regional hospital on 28 March 2013 and was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome. He remained in intensive care for over a month unable to breath without the aid of a respirator. Guillain-Barre Syndrome is a rare disease and he was informed that he would never fully recover. He was totally incapacitated for numerous months and is continuing medical treatment through the DVA. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; DVA medical records, statements from co-workers, fact sheets, military orders, Power of Attorney, and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 4 January 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. According to Special Order AA-413 dated 18 May 2012, the applicant was demoted to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt, E-5) effective and with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 7 May 2012. According to Special Order AA-437 dated 18 December 2012, the applicant was demoted to the grade of Senior Airman (SrA, E-4) effective and with a DOR of 1 December 2012. On 6 November 2012, the applicant’s commander notified him that she was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-26.6, Failure to meet minimum fitness standards. On 6 November 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification. On 5 February 2013, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver request for an honorable discharge and waived his right to a board hearing. On 12 March 2013, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the discharge authority accept the conditional waiver and separate the applicant for “Unsatisfactory Performance: Failure to Meet Minimum Fitness Standards” with an honorable service characterization, without Probation and Rehabilitation. On 14 March 2013, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge. Probation and rehabilitation was considered and deemed inappropriate. On 22 March 2013, the applicant was honorably separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208. His narrative reason for separation is “Physical Standards.” He served on active duty for a period of 18 years, 2 months and 19 days. According to Special Order AA-450 dated 27 March 2013, the applicant was demoted to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C, E- 3) effective and with a DOR of 14 March 2013. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be reinstated into the Air Force. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant failed his fifth Fitness Assessment (FA) within a 23-month period, therefore, he failed to meet and maintain Air Force fitness standards, which is a sufficient basis for discharge. Notwithstanding remedial efforts by the applicant's unit, it was apparent that he was either not capable or not willing to make the effort necessary to meet and maintain Air Force fitness requirements. The applicant was afforded ample opportunity to overcome his deficiencies. However, attempts to rehabilitate him through several administrative actions (to include demotion) were unsuccessful. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be reinstated into the Air Force in the grade of TSgt. The commander acted within his authority to demote the applicant for his failure to maintain fitness standards. In accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, paragraph 6.3.5., airmen may be demoted for failing to maintain or demonstrate the ability and willingness to attain physical standards. In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Air Force Fitness Program, unit commanders may take adverse administrative action upon a member's unsatisfactory fitness score on an official FA. Attachment 14 provides commanders guidance when selecting the appropriate administrative and personnel actions for members who fail to maintain physical fitness standards. The demotion action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence of any irregularities or that the case was mishandled in any way. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request for reinstatement to active duty and to be medically discharged at the highest grade held. In order to receive a medical separation or retirement, there must be an illness or injury that interfered with the applicant's ability to perform his military duties to the extent and/or duration that warranted processing for medical separation under the authority of AFI 36- 3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation. Although a witness states the applicant reportedly experienced symptoms of numbness and tingling of his extremities starting on 19 March 2013 [prior to his discharge date 22 March 2013] and reportedly noted his difficulty ambulating during this period, his clinical presentation at a civilian emergency department occurred the day after his discharge, although, in retrospect, errantly attributed to anxiety and stress. The applicant's career was not cut short due to the medical condition, but due to his FA failures, principally due to his abdominal circumference measurements. The Medical Consultant found no association between the applicant's FA failures and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. While it is likely the, DVA has established or will establish service connection for the applicant's medical condition, Guillain-Barre clearly was not the cause of terminating his career. Had the applicant been diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome prior to his discharge, he would likely have been placed on medical hold for further evaluation and treatment; with considerations for referral through the Disability Evaluation System. Then officials would have been confronted with two competing causes for career termination. Now, one year-plus since discharge, the Medical Consultant is not privy to the applicant's current clinical status or whether there are permanent residual impairments, if any, related to his disease; noting the widely variable prognosis for recovery, from a few weeks to as long as a few years. About 30 percent of those with the Guillain-Barre Syndrome still have residual weakness after 3 years and about 3 percent may suffer a relapse of muscle weakness, according to an online National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke publication. No evidence is supplied for the Board's consideration with this regard, e.g., disability ratings by the DVA. The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 12 November 2014, copies of the Air Force and BCMR Medical evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F). 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion 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 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 this application in Executive Sessions on 15 January 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2014- 00733 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 January 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 1 April 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 14 May 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 September 2014. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 November 2014.