RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-01195

xxxxxxxxxxxx	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

1.  He be given a service-connected disability of 20 percent or greater due to a work-related injury.

2.  His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to show a medical disability, honorable discharge.

3.  His DD Form 214 reflect his Veterans status as a disabled Veteran.

4.  His DD Form 256, Honorable Discharge Certificate, reflect his grade of staff sergeant and his status as a disabled Veteran.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He injured his lower back in the performance of his duties while he served in the Air Force Reserve (AFR).  This injury resulted in multiple disc compression and permanent deep back musculature tearing leaving him with long-term shortness of breath, spasms, nerve damage and an inability to walk. This workplace operational accident happened while transferring a female patient onto the operating room table.   This workplace injury and the lack of treatment given has, over the years, brought about spinal deterioration and hastened arthritic changes including misalignment of his spine and an accelerated arthritic disease process which did not exist prior to this work place injury.  His physical examination prior to his enlistment showed no spine or musculoskeletal aberration or abnormalities.  He was treated for a severe workplace injury resulting in breathing difficulties, spasms, and the inability to walk, at the XXXX hospital and was administered an injection and relieved from duty and deemed medically disqualified for worldwide duty (WWD).  The complexities of his case were compounded by his leadership when he was placed on a one-year plus hiatus and forced to seek all medical treatment through his civilian provider.  A base medical examination was performed regarding his injury that identified the abnormality as “tender over lower lumbar spine and adjacent musculature with pain aggravated by bending, lateral twisting and hyperextension.”  A diagnosis of symptomatic spondylosis was given but a recommendation for further Orthopedic consultation was never performed.  He was discharged without further communication from his unit regarding his injury.  He was advised to have his DD Form 214 corrected so he could obtain a waiver of future funding fees associated with his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) home loan along with securing benefits he has been denied due to an incorrect basis for his separation from the military.

In support of his request, the applicant submitted a personal statement, documents from the DVA regarding his DVA home loan Certificate of Eligibility (COE), his DD Form 214, Reserve Order XXX and his discharge certificate indicating his honorable discharge from the AFR, a Report of Medical Examination conducted prior to his enlistment (dated 12 Oct 68) showing no spinal or other back injuries and after he enlisted (dated 29 Oct 72) showing his back injury; medical documentation relating to his back injury; and several emails and letters of request for assistance regarding his case.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force Reserve sergeant (E-4).

On 27 May 69, DD Form 214, provided by the applicant, reflects he was honorably discharged in the grade of airman (E-2) after serving five months of active duty.  He was discharged, with a narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Active Duty Training (Non-Prior Service Ready Reservist).”

On 6 Jul 73, Reserve Order Number XXXX, provided by the applicant, indicates he was relieved from assignment and honorably discharged from the AFR in the grade of sergeant (E-4) and would be issued a DD Form 256, which also reflects his grade of sergeant.

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

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

AFI 36-3202, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214/5 Series). The DD Form 214 is a document used to separate an airman from the Regular Air Force or Air Reserve Component airmen from active duty.  It provides an accurate and complete summation of active duty service at the time of transfer, release, discharge, or change of component or status while on active duty. 

DD Form 214 Personnel Services Delivery (PSD) Guide, Section E, Table 5, How to Prepare the DD Form 214, indicates the active duty grade held at the close-out date of the DD Form 214 will be placed in item 4a (Grade or Rank).  Furthermore, a member’s Veterans status is not an authorized entry annotated on the DD Form 214 nor is it annotated on the DD Form 256.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The AFBCMR Medical Advisor recommends denying the applicant’s request for a medical separation finding the absence of medical documentation coupled with noted inconsistencies appropriately parallels not supporting the applicant’s requested actions. The burden of proof is placed on the applicant to submit accurate and compelling evidence to support his request. The evidence he did submit was insufficient to support a favorable change in his personnel records or that of his DD Form 214.  The applicant may choose to submit new evidence of outpatient treatment records and emergency room visits from all service time as well as documented dates of weekend reserve duty to support his claim.

In addressing the applicant’s concern of service connection with an impairment rating, the DVA is paramount and rules in such a jurisdiction. Service connection of any illness or injury is a term whereby the DVA recognizes that a disability is related to a veteran’s military service in some way.  Once service connection is granted, then a Veteran is eligible to receive benefits for that condition.  It appears this applicant is seeking such DVA benefits and therefore, desires that his alleged specific back injury and subsequent back condition receive an impairment rating.  In Reserve status, in order for that to occur, a line of duty determination (LODD) would have been initiated and if favorably found and the condition caused the applicant the inability to continue to perform the duties required of their job (i.e. …the condition was deemed unfitting), then they would be processed via the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) for adjudication of either discharge with severance pay (DWSP), entry into temporary disability retirement list, or medically retired.  Of the paucity of documents submitted with this application, the Medical Advisor is unable to determine any degree of a back injury other than what the special physical examination revealed in Oct 72, which only listed pain on movement and tenderness in the low back.  An inconsistency appeared between what the applicant thought and what the special physical examination provider documented. The provider did not make a note that it was the applicant’s injuries that caused him to be absent from duty, but rather the provider simply noted the applicant’s symptoms which may have contributed to his absenteeism.  Never did the provider yield any nexus to conform what the applicant described.  Additionally, the applicant’s noted comment with regard to the special physical examination performed in Oct 72 that “[his doctor] recommend in this report that a special “Orthopedic Consultation” was needed to diagnosis extend (sic) and severity of the lower back damage” was not completely accurate. Rather, the physical examination document simply noted “orthopedic consultation” as a recommendation. There was no reference, as per the applicant’s statement, of the need to diagnosis the extension and severity of the lower back damage.

Other than a single comment from the applicant whereby he noted in a 19 Jan 22 e-mail that “His superior officer had [him] undergo a special medical evaluation months later leading to his issuance of an honorable discharge.”  The Medical Advisor remains unsure as to the absolute reason behind such a special physical examination and therefore, has no reason not to conclude that the applicant did indeed have some sort of a back/spine condition, but there simply was no evidence to further conclude on a LODD and or a condition of unfitness in pre-processing for possible IDES consideration.

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 25 Apr 22 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 the AFBCMR Medical Advisor and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  In accordance with (IAW), AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 3.4.4, applicants have the burden of proof for providing evidence in support of their claim.  The Board finds the evidence presented by the applicant inconsistent and insufficient to grant the applicant a medical separation/service-connected disability.  In addition, the Board finds no evidence of an error with the applicant’s DD Form 214 or DD Form 256.  IAW,  AFI 36-3202, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214/5 Series) and the DD Form 214, Personnel Services Delivery (PSD) Guide, Veterans status is not annotated on either of these documents nor has the applicant provided any evidence that the grade annotated on these documents, held at the time of his discharge, was incorrect.  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. 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-2021-01195 in Executive Session on 26 Oct 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 27 Jan 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFBCMR Medical Advisor, dated 22 Apr 22.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 25 Apr 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.