RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00481 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge be changed to medically retired and his demotion from Staff Sergeant (SSgt)/E-5 to Senior Airman (SrA)/E-4 be reversed. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He submitted over 200 pages of medical paperwork to his unit in 2012 and 2013, documenting he suffered from depression/anxiety, acid reflux, sleep apnea and gout, but it was ignored by his commander. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) were initiated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) but not for the other issues because his records were never given to the 940th medical doctor to review. Instead, he was demoted to Senior Airman (SrA)/E-4 before being honorably released in August 2014. He feels he should be medically retired versus discharged due to his service-connected disabilities. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to his Record Review Report on Individual Persons (RCD RVW RIP), dated 6 Jan 09, his Date Of Entry (DOE) in the Air Force Reserve was 27 Aug 08, his enlistment tour was for six years and his Expiration Term of Service (ETS) was 14 Aug 14. According to Reserve Order P-083, on 3 May 09, he was promoted to SrA effective 1 Jun 09. According to AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), for inclusive period 1 May 11 thru 30 Apr 13, the applicant performed satisfactorily when present for duty. According to a memorandum supplied by the applicant, dated 18 Sep 13, he was involuntarily demoted to SrA for unsatisfactory participation. He acknowledged receipt on 26 Sep 13. According to a memorandum supplied by the applicant, dated 3 Oct 13, he responded to the demotion memorandum stating he non- concurred, was submitting written material on his own behalf, had consulted counsel and was requesting a personal hearing. According to Reserve Order A-271, dated 18 Dec 14, he was honorably discharged In Accordance With (IAW) AFR 35-41 Volume 3, Separation Procedures for USAFR Members, effective 26 Aug 14. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are included at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/A1K recommends denial, indicating the applicant was properly notified on 18 Sep 13 of the demotion action by the commander for unsatisfactory participation and was afforded the opportunity to acknowledge and respond. He acknowledged receipt and responded on 3 Oct 13, was demoted on 8 Nov 13 and was separated on 26 Aug 14, his Expiration Term of Service (ETS). In addition, he was separated according to applicable Air Force Instructions (AFIs). In accordance with AFI 36-2502, Enlisted Airmen Promotion and Demotion Programs, paragraph 9.4.1, airmen may be demoted for unsatisfactory participation after five unexcused absences (Category “A” unit program), one unsatisfactory participation year (Category “B” Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) or Category “E” Participating Individual Ready Reserve (PIRR)). The commander sends the airman a certified memorandum, return receipt requested, stressing the seriousness of the situation and advising the demotion action is being initiated. The demotion will be effected as soon as practicable after the airman has been provided the opportunity to exercise his or her rights as defined in the memorandum advising of the intent to demote. The demotion action must be completed prior to separating the airman. Also, IAW AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, paragraph 3.1.2., states the characterization of separation for airmen applying for separation or discharge for convenience of the government is honorable unless an entry-level separation is authorized. A member may apply under this section at the expiration of an enlistment or completion of their Military Service Obligation (MSO), whichever is later. A complete copy of the ARPC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends consideration of partial relief by restoring the applicant’s rank, with attendant pay, as the reason for the demotion effected in September 2013 was due to his absences; which appear to have been the reasonably mitigated by his medical condition. In order for the applicant to be eligible for a medical retirement, the condition(s) must first be evaluated for a Line of Duty (LOD) determination. If found in LOD, the condition or combination thereof, must be unfitting [or cause career termination], and then must reach a minimum disability rating of 30% to qualify for medical retirement. No AF Form 469 was issued for any of the applicant’s medical conditions prohibiting worldwide qualification and no LOD determinations were introduced in the applicant’s favor. In fact, the applicant sought a waiver for his medical conditions in order to continue his military service. Moreover, although the applicant was reportedly told of an association between his Sleep Apnea and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD), neither of these conditions universally warrant medical disqualification and release from military service; notwithstanding the fact that neither of these conditions has been proven to be in LOD or permanently aggravated by military service. Nevertheless, the applicant’s recurring Gout should have raised doubt to his retainability had it been brought to the attention of military medical officials. It could explain his absences from UTA, however; it is still the applicant’s responsibility to inform his medical conditions to military medical officials for proper disposition. While the evidence suggests a reasonable explanation for his absences, none of the evidence is sufficient to justify a medical retirement. As to the applicant’s claims that his commander “ignored” medical documentation he reportedly submitted on his behalf, the BCMR Medical Consultant, nor the Board is an investigative body and, thus, will not be able to corroborate or validate the allegation made by the applicant. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He disagrees with the recommendation that only his rank be restored. He requested an LOD determination for his migraines, acid reflux and gout. While his request has been ignored, he’s confident that if it were reviewed, his conditions would warrant medical retirement. He has submitted all of his medical documentation to the Department of Veteran’s Affairs and received ratings for migraines and acid reflux, though the gout rating is still pending. A complete copy of the APPLICANT’s rebuttal 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 regarding the applicant’s honorable discharge. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including attachments, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPR and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the BCMR Medical Consultant opined we may consider reinstatement of the applicant’s rank as lingering medical issues may have contributed to missing UTA days, we found the applicant did not fulfill his responsibility to inform his military medical officials of his medical conditions for proper disposition. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00481 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, ARPC/A1K, dated 23 Apr 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, SAF/MRBC, 30 Sep 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 15.