ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2018-00019-2

	COUNSEL:  NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED:  NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Board reconsider his request to change his reentry (RE) code from 2Q (Personnel medically retired or discharged) to a code that allows him to reenlist.

RESUME OF THE CASE

The applicant is a former Air Force senior airman (E-4).

On 17 Jul 18, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to change his RE code from 2Q to an RE code that would allow him to reenlist into military service, finding that the applicant had provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief.

For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings, with Exhibits A-D, at Exhibit E.

The applicant requests reconsideration of his request to change his RE code to a code that would allow him to reenter military service.  While awaiting a medical evaluation board he was not offered any physical therapy, medication, or time off for medical appointments.  After his discharge, he attended college and began to work out 5 days a week, which greatly helped his back and allowed him to heal enough to return to duty.  He has also earned a degree and would like to return to the Air Force to put his knowledge to work.  He applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs and was denied disability compensation for left carpal tunnel syndrome and left hand tremor, and myofascial pain syndrome of the thoracolumbar spine, which are the same diagnoses that resulted in his disability discharge.

APPICABLE AUTHORITY
Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 61: Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability and Title 38 U.S.C., Veterans’ Benefits.  The disability evaluation systems of the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs have different functions and operate under separate laws.  Pursuant to Title 10 U.S.C., the military services must determine if a member’s condition renders him or her unfit for continued military service.  To be unfitting, the condition must preclude the member from fulfilling his or her military duties.  If the Air Force finds an airman unfit, the law provides compensation due to the premature termination of that Airman’s career.  As a result, Air Force disability ratings are a “snapshot” of the Airman’s condition at the time of separation.  By contrast, the Department of Veterans picks up where the Air Force must, by law, leave off.  According to Title 38, U.S.C., the Department of Veterans Affairs may rate any service-connected condition based on future employability or re-evaluate a condition based on changes in its severity after separation from service.  This often results in different ratings from the two agencies that are equally valid.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

After reviewing all Exhibits, the majority of the Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice.  As noted in the previous case, the applicant’s RE code is correct based on his disability discharge.  The applicant provided a decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs showing he was denied disability compensation for the same diagnoses that resulted in his disability discharge.  However, as noted above, the disability evaluation systems of the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs have different functions and operate under separate laws.  The Air Force found the applicant unfit for continued service and directed his discharge.  Conversely, as evidenced by the documents provided by the applicant, the Department of Veterans may rate any service-connected condition based on future employability or re-evaluate a condition based on changes in its severity after separation from service.  In view of the foregoing, the Board majority finds insufficient evidence to overcome the decision of the previous Board and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board majority recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2018-00019-2 in Executive Session on 23 July 2020:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

A majority of the panel voted against correcting the record.  Mr. Tompkins voted to correct the record but did not provide a minority opinion.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit E:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-E, dated 27 November 2018.
Exhibit F:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated undated.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.