RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-00546

xxxxxxxxxxxx	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

1.  His honorable discharge from 1973 be changed to a medical retirement.

2.  His grade of airman (E-2) be changed to staff sergeant (E-5).

3.  He receive all back pay and allowances associated with the grade change.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He served in Vietnam from 1965 to 1969 and achieved the grade of sergeant (E-4).  In 1972, he was offered a flight billet as a Navigator at Officer Training School (OTS).  A medical condition, unknown allergies, disqualified him from two flying classes in the early stages of OTS which was not known beforehand.  He was counseled to file for back pay and to have his grade changed from E-2 to E-5 while he attended OTS training.  He should have been paid at the higher grade as he was told prior service members were paid at least as an E-5.

To support his claim, the applicant submitted medical records documenting his allergy and asthma condition and his current Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability rating showing he is receiving compensation for his service-connected medical disabilities at 80 percent.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force member.

On 12 Feb 69, DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, reflects the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of sergeant (E-4) after serving 3 years, 2 months, and 20 days of active duty.  He was discharged, with a narrative reason for separation of “Early Release of Regular First Term Airmen.”

Dated 23 Nov 71, Reserve Order XXXXX indicates the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve (AFR), effective 22 Nov 71.

On 14 May 73, DD Form 4, Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the United States, indicates the applicant enlisted in the Air Force in the grade of airman (E-2) for four years.

On 1 Jun 73, a report of medical exam letter shows the applicant was certified as medically disqualified for flying Class I and IA for allergic rhinitis. 

On 4 Jun 73, DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, indicates the applicant was eliminated from the School of Military Sciences, for a medical condition that disqualified him for flying Class I and IA.  It was noted, no requirement exists in nonrated utilization fields.  It was also noted in Section IV, Evaluation to be considered in the Future for Determining Acceptability for Other Officer Training, he was recommended if physical defects are corrected or if such defects are not disqualifying for other programs.

On 6 Jun 73, DD Form 214, reflects the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of airman (E-2) after serving 23 days of active duty.  He was discharged, with a narrative reason for separation of “Officer Trainee Failed to Complete OTS.”

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

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

According to the Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 32, National Defense, Section 902, Officer Training School, sometime between 1 Jul 77 and 1 Jul 79, the requirement for airmen to attend OTS as a staff sergeant (E-5) was enacted.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the applicant’s request for a change to his discharge characterization.  Based on review of the applicant’s request and his master personnel record, there is no error or injustice with the discharge processing.  The commander and Base Discharge Authority (BDA) received documentation from medical authorities that indicated the applicant had a condition that disqualified him from completing OTS and therefore directed discharge. The separations office is not the OPR or authority regarding medical considerations related to discharge.  The separations office executed the discharge as directed by the appropriate authorities.  Any other considerations would need review by separate medical authorities. 

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Medical Advisor recommends denying the applicant’s request for a medical retirement.  Although the submitted application to this Board made note that the applicant was rated 80 percent disabled by the DVA, it failed to identify the specific medical condition for which the applicant was found disqualifying from flying Classes I and IA.  Both personnel and medical records submitted with the application, as well as those few found in the electronic medical records data base, were reviewed to determine if the applicant’s medical condition of allergic rhinitis (AR), while serving, met criteria for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  AR is usually considered a relatively minor health condition.  However, it can result in major adverse effects in aviators in light of the unique environmental and physical stresses of flight.  AR is a nuisance; however, for aircrew it can be a serious and potentially fatal condition.  Aircrew can be adversely affected by AR because the condition can diminish active flying operations and readiness through temporary flying duty restrictions.  However, the actual impact of AR on mission effectiveness in terms of temporary flying duty restrictions is unknown. What is known are the potential hazards of having AR while in control of aircraft.  They include ear and sinus barotrauma with potential in-flight incapacitation, discomfort, distraction, and sneezing which could be a particular hazard in high speed, low level flight.

The applicant contends that medical problems (not known before) disqualified him from continuing OTS.  This alleged error or injustice of disqualifying the applicant from continuing OTS is not completely accurate.  According to the current Medical Standards Directory (MSD), any type of AR is disqualifying for flying Class I and IA and only non-AR (MSD line E-10), when severe and chronic and requiring ongoing ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialty follow-up is disqualifying for service retention.  The MSD further denotes that a verified history of allergic, non-allergic, or vasomotor rhinitis, after age 12, unless symptoms are mild and can be controlled by a single approved medication, is qualified for retention.  In this particular case, the applicant was not disqualified for a commission in the Air Force, but rather was disqualified for specific classes of flying as previously noted from the document dated 4 May 73.  Medical standards in effect in 1973 were unavailable for review nor were said dated standards submitted with the application; however, as stated by medical in 1973, the cited condition and its associated disqualifications were explicitly the same as current standards.  The evidence available did not show that the applicant was unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.  He remained fully capable to continue towards a commission in a field where AR may be non-disqualifying.  The Medical Advisor opines that in the absence of an unfitting condition coupled with a condition that qualifies for service retention, no criteria was met for processing the applicant through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) leading to an MEB.

In regards to the applicant’s noting of an 80 percent impairment by the DVA, with an assumed direct correlation to the same if he met criteria for a MEB, it is important to note differences between the DVA and Department of Defense (DoD).  The military’s DES can only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the “snapshot” time of separation and not based on future progression of injury or illness.  On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred, without regard to and independent of its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or the length of time since date of discharge.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

OTS/CC recommends denying the applicant’s request for a change to his pay grade finding no evidence of an error or injustice.  The applicant served on active duty in the United States Air Force for three years and two months.  He was discharged on 12 Feb 69 under honorable conditions at the pay grade of senior airman (E-4). The applicant entered OTS on 17 May 73, as an airman (E-2).  While at OTS, the applicant was medically evaluated and diagnosed with allergic rhinitis.  According to the medical evaluation letter, dated 4 May 73, his diagnosis disqualified him from flying status, but did not disqualify him from commissioning.  He was medically disenrolled from OTS on 4 Jun 73.  On 5 Jun 73, he signed a memorandum requesting separation from the USAF and as a result, he was honorably discharged from the Air Force on 6 Jun 73.  According to current regulations, AFMAN 36-2032, Military Recruiting and Accessions, Table 10.3, OTS classifies officer trainees (OTs) with a break in service as non-prior service (NPS).  These OTs are paid as an E-5.  Prior service OTs (those attending OTS directly from regular Air Force, Air Force Reserve, or Air National Guard without a break in service) are paid at their current pay grade.  However, NPS OTs in 1973 were not paid as an E-5.

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 12 Aug 22 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 recommendations of AFPC/DP2STM, the AFBCMR Medical Advisor, and OTC/CC and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Specifically, the evidence presented did not demonstrate the applicant was unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating at the time of his separation.  He was not disqualified for a commission in the Air Force, but rather was disqualified for specific classes of flying.  The mere existence of a medical diagnosis does not automatically determine unfitness and eligibility for a medical separation or retirement.  The military’s DES established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, U.S.C., only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries, which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the “snapshot” time of separation and not based on post-service progression of disease or injury.  Additionally, the applicant’s grade while attending OTS in 1973 was correct.  He had a break in service and was considered non-prior service; the requirement for airmen to attend OTS as a staff sergeant (E-5) was enacted sometime between 1 Jul 77 and 1 Jul 79.  Furthermore, 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, 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-2021-00546 in Executive Session on 6 Jun 22 and 2 Nov 22:

, 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 12 Feb 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SSR, dated 23 Feb 22.
Exhibit D:	Advisory Opinion, AFBCMR Medical Advisor, dated 13 Mar 22.
Exhibit E:	Advisory Opinion, OTS/CC, atchs, dated 17 Jun 22.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 12 Aug 22.

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.