RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01208
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her honorable discharge from the Air National Guard (ANG) be corrected to reflect that she was discharged for medical disability reasons.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was told that she was being medically discharged but was not.  She was injured while in basic military training and her condition was misdiagnosed.  She was discharged from the New Hampshire ANG and told that the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) was responsible for her medical care.  

In support of her request applicant provided a physical examination summary; physical therapy evaluations; her medical care billing history; and, a pharmaceutical receipt.

Her complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the ANG on 19 Oct 98 and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 15 Feb 00.  Applicant was honorably discharged from the ANG because of medical disqualification on 13 Dec 00.  She had completed 2 years of satisfactory Federal service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial.  The consultant states that what is essential of an unfitting condition that would warrant disability processing is that there be a condition that renders the individual incapable of performing the duties of his/her rank, grade, duty, or station.  The stress of basic military training, which caused her discomfort, did not prevent her from completing that portion of training or the follow-on technical training.  The finding of disqualification in the ANG system identifies problems that preclude mobilization and deployment participation, the essence of such military duties, whereas someone on active duty might be allowed to continue while awaiting permanent resolution of such problems(see Exhibit C).

The Chief Special Actions/BCMR Advisories, USAF Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPD states that applicant's file confirmed that she was never referred to or considered by the Air Force Disability Evaluation System.  Her records include a Line of Duty (LOD) determination reflecting that she sustained an injury resulting in left hip pain while participating in a physical conditioning program while at basic training.  She was treated on several occasions but was able to complete both basic training and technical school.  After returning to home station she received continued treatment for recurring hip and lower abdominal pain.  She was found medically disqualified for worldwide duty by the ANG Surgeon General's office and was subsequently discharged.  Nothing in her records confirms her allegations that she was advised that she would receive a medical discharge.  Service-connected medical conditions incurred, but not found unfitting while on active duty are not compensated under Title 10, United Sates Code (USC).  However, the DVA may compensate prior service members for these conditions.  Her records indicate she is currently being compensated by the DVA (see Exhibit D).  
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Jul 01 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  Based on the available evidence of record it appears that after completing her initial active duty training, she was fit and able to perform her military duties, was released from active duty, and returned to the Air National Guard (ANG).  However, during her tenure with the ANG, competent medical authority determined that she was medically disqualified for worldwide duty and as a result, she was subsequently discharged. Applicant requests that her discharge be corrected to reflect that she was discharged for medical disability reasons.  Had it been determined that she was found unfit for continued military service while performing her initial active duty training, which is a distinctively separate issue, Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing would have been appropriate.  ANG members found not qualified for worldwide duty are either discharged, or if circumstances warrant, are considered for assignment into a position that is not worldwide assignable.  We note her indication that she was unwilling to cross-train to facilitate such assignment.  Based on the available documentation, we find no evidence of error in this case.  Other than her own assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant which would lead us to believe that her discharge was contrary to the provisions of law or policy.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 21 Aug 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 May 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 Jun 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 26 Jun 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 Jul 01.

								
								Panel Chair