RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-02744

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His entry-level separation be changed to an honorable discharge for service connected disability.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He was discharged for a service-connected disability and is currently receiving disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his disability.  In support of his request, he provides a letter from the DVA with a summary of benefits that he is currently receiving.  He noticed this error when he applied for a VA loan.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 7 Jan 98.

According to Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 27 Jan 98, the applicant was diagnosed with instability of the right sterno clavicular joint at Basic Military Training (BMT).

On 2 Feb 98, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, chapter 5, section C, Defective Enlistments, paragraph 5.14 under Basis for Erroneous Enlistment with an entry-level separation.  The specific reason for this action was a medical narrative summary received on 27 Jan 98, found the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist.  He should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because of instability of the right sterno clavicular joint.

On 2 Feb 98, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and waived his right to consult with counsel and to submit statements in his behalf.

On 3 Feb 98, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s separation.

On 5 Feb 98, the applicant received an entry-level separation, with uncharacterized service.

In accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Attachment A3.5, Airmen are given entry-level separation with uncharacterized service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DoD) determined it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize a member’s limited service when separation is initiated within the first 180 days of active service.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DPFDD recommends denying the application.  There is no indication an error or injustice occurred.  The applicant was administratively discharged from BMT under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208.  The applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist because he failed to disclose a previously diagnosed condition for instability of the right sterno clavicular joint during his Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) physical examination prior to BMT entry.  There is no record that the applicant was processed under the Disability Evaluation System, therefore his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, should not be changed.

The Air Force and the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) disability systems operate under separate laws.  Under the Air Force system (Title 10, United States Code [U.S.C.]), Physical Evaluation Boards must determine whether an Airman’s medical condition renders them unfit for duty and apply the rating best associated with the level of disability at the time of disability processing (a snapshot in time).  That rating determines the final disposition (discharge with severance pay, placement on the temporary disability retired list, or permanent retirement) and is not subject to change after the service member has separated.  Under the VA system (Title 38, U.S.C), the member may be evaluated over the years and their rating may be increased or decreased based on changes in the member’s medical condition at the current time.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 18 May 20 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DPFDD and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years of discovering the alleged error or injustice, as required by Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery within the three-year limit, the Board does not find the assertion supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, the Board finds the application untimely and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; 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-2019-02744 in Executive Session on 17 Jun 20:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 8 May 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 22 Jan 20.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 18 May 20.

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.