RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-05034

	COUNSEL: NONE 
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: NOT INDICATED

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

1.  His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be updated to reflect his narrative reason for separation as “Medical,” rather than “COMPLETION OF REQUIRE ACTIVE SERVICE.”

2.  His DD Form 214, Block 12c, NET ACTIVE SERVICE THIS PERIOD, be updated to reflect 9 years, rather than 8 years, 4 months, and 4 days.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He was discharged from the Air Force for medical reasons; however, his DD Form 214 reflects completion of active service.  In addition, his DD Form 214 should reflect he served 9 years of active service.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Regular Air Force staff sergeant (E-5).

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, effective 15 Jan 05, his narrative reason for separation reflects “COMPLETION OF REQUIRE ACTIVE SERVICE.”  Block 10e reflects he served 8 years, 4 months, and 4 days of active service.

AFPC/DP2LT has verified the applicant’s active service as “8 years, 4 months, and 5 days,” and administratively corrected his records.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C, D, and E.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

The Department of Defense (DoD) and the DVA disability evaluation systems operate under two separate laws.  Under Title 10, United States Code, Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a member's condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating.  The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean the condition is unfitting for continued military service.  To be unfitting, the condition must be such that it alone precludes the member from fulfilling their military duties.  If the board renders a finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of their career.  Further, it must be noted the AF disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member's condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time.  It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the AF must, by law, leave off.  Under Title 38, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the severity of a condition.  This often results in different ratings by the two agencies.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The BCMR Medical Advisor recommends denying the application indicating the applicant has not provided any documentation to support his request.  The applicant has provided no clinical notes to corroborate any condition that prompted fitness for duty consideration and a subsequent medical discharge.  Documentation that would prove helpful includes:  Duty Limiting Condition Report(s); a request for Review in Lieu of (RILO) medical board; a memo requesting Disability Evaluation System (DES) consideration; or a physical evaluation board determination.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2SSR recommends denying the application.  Based on review of the applicant’s request and the master of personnel record, there is no error or injustice with the discharge processing.  The applicant was honorably discharged after he declined to obtain additional enlistment retainability for an assignment and was subsequently separated at his Expiration Term of Service (ETS).  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DP2LT recommends denying the application to correct the applicant’s DD 214 to reflect 9 years total.  However, DP2LT verified the period of service in item 12c should be corrected to reflect 8 years, 4 months, and 5 days.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 28 May 20 for comment (Exhibit F), 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 the BCMR Medical Advisor, AFPC/DP2SSR, and AFPC/DP2LT 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).  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, other than already administratively corrected, 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-2019-05034 in Executive Session on 17 Jun and 28 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 22 Feb 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated 9 Mar 20.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSR, dated 1 Apr 20.
Exhibit E:  Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2LT, dated 7 Apr 20
Exhibit F:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 28 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.