ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00658

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, she requests her medical record be reassessed and her medical condition at the time of discharge be reevaluated based on differences between her military disability rating and subsequent Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decisions.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was convened on 10 Aug 00 and their diagnosis and findings were: Fibromyalgia with mild C5-6 degenerative disc disease, with Sep 99 as the approximate date of origin.  The MEB recommended referral to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).

On 22 Aug 00, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) convened and established a diagnosis of Fibromyalgia with chronic pain associated with degenerative disk disease, C5-6 with cervicalgia and headaches.  Other diagnosis considered but not ratable:  Temporal mandibular joint disease.  The IPEB found the applicant unfit because of physical disability and recommended discharge with severance pay with a compensable rating of 20 percent.  On 12 Sep 00, the applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB and waived her right to a Formal PEB (FPEB).

The applicant was discharged with an honorable discharge on 20 Nov 00 under the provisions of AFI 36-3212 (Disability, Severance Pay).  At the time of her separation, she was credited with 6 years, 10 months and 11 days of active duty service.

A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 17 Jun 01.  For an accounting of the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E.

The applicant has submitted a request for reconsideration, contending that the MEB had erred in their decision.  Her overall concern is how two separate agencies, using the exact same guidelines to base their final decision, differ so greatly in opinions.  To support this assertion, the applicant provided a personal statement and a copy of the DVA’s rating decision.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the AFBCMR Medical Consultant reviewed the applicant’s most recent submission and is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s records is warranted and the application should be denied.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that the reason the applicant could be found unfit for duty by the Air Force at a certain disability level and later be granted a higher service-connected disability by the DVA lies in understanding the differences between Title 10, U.S.C. and Title 38, U.S.C.  Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 61, is the federal statute that charges the Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and vital force.  For an individual to be considered unfit for military service, there must be a medical condition so severe that it prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank and experience.  The applicant’s only condition that rendered her unfit for continued military service was the fibromyalgia, with degenerative disc disease, that was judged to be no more than a mildly disabling one, and separation with 20% disability was appropriately recommended.  Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that are not unfitting for military service.  This is the reason why an individual can be found unfit for service at a certain level of disability, and yet soon thereafter receive a higher compensation rating from the DVA for service-connected, but militarily non-unfitting conditions.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that the evidence of record establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was properly evaluated and rated, that separation for physical disability with a 20% rating was proper, and that no error or injustice occurred in this case.

The AFBCMR evaluation is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Having been provided the advisory opinion, the applicant submitted a personal statement for the Board’s review in which she relates that her military medical record and information pertaining to her physical examination and evaluation performed by the DVA’s physician demonstrate the possible existence of probable material error or injustice.  Her military medical record contains supporting documentation in regards to her medical condition and the severity prior to discharge.  She provided a copy of the chronological record of medical care dictated by the Staff Rheumatologist at Wilford Hall Medical Center, who diagnosed her condition, prior to her separation from active duty service, and found her condition to be moderately severe at that time.  She is assuming pertinent information was inadvertently excluded from the MEB summary, which would have had a greater impact on the Board’s decision at the time of review.  Although the information provided is dated 2 Feb 02, it reflects back to the time of her initial diagnosis.  

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

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of the appeal, we do not find it provides adequate support for a revision of the previous findings in this case.  While the applicant believes the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) did not review evidence concerning her medical treatment, no evidence has been presented to substantiate this claim.  Inasmuch as the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) reviews all the medical records and pertinent documentation of the member prior to rendering their findings, we believe the documents in question, which are included in her medical records, were reviewed by the IPEB at the time of their review.  Therefore, it is our opinion that the applicant was properly evaluated and rated for her conditions.  With regard to the differences between the applicant’s military disability rating and subsequent Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decisions, we note that the DVA rates for any and all service connected conditions, to the degree they interfere with future employability and social adaptability, without consideration of fitness; whereas the Air Force rates a member’s disability based on their ability to perform his or her duties at the time of final disposition.  In the absence of persuasive evidence by the applicant indicating that her separation for disability was erroneous or contrary to the governing regulation, which implements the law, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the foregoing, we find no basis on which to favorably consider the requested relief.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 23 September 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number 01-00658.

	Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 27 Jun 01,
                with Exhibits.
	Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 20 Jan 02, with 
                attachment.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                14 Feb 02.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Feb 02.
	Exhibit I.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 24 Jun 02, with
                attachments.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair