RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01326
		INDEX CODE:  108.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be corrected to reflect that he was discharged for medical disability reasons.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was awarded disability compensation by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

In support of his request, the applicant provided copies of his DD Form 214s, Report of Separation from Active Duty; and, documents associated with his DVA rating decision.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 30 Mar 71.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 3 Mar 73.  On 11 Dec 78, he was voluntarily discharged from the Air Force, with service characterized as honorable.  He served 7 years, 8 months, and 10 days on active duty. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states that for several years he had painful calluses on both feet documented less than one month after entering military service.  His condition did not interfere with duty and participating in sports activities until 1978 when he was evaluated with flexion deformities of the third and fourth toes on both feet.  He had the painful calluses on both feet for over 10 years and they were beginning to interfere with his ability to do his job and the activities he enjoyed.  He underwent corrective surgery on both feet in May 1978.  He presented ongoing foot pain in September 1978 and was reevaluated in October.  Having planned to separate in December 1978, he declined further surgery.  His separation physical on 15 Sep 78 noted the pain and surgery and determined them not to be unfitting for continued service.  

The DVA rated his condition at 0% effective the time of his discharge and rated it at 20% as of 29 Sep 99, 20 years after his discharge from the military.  His foot condition did not cause the termination of his career and he elected to leave the service.  A person could acquire physical conditions that, although not unfitting at the time of separation, may later progress in severity and alter the individual's lifestyle and future employability.  The DVA compensation system was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not unfitting for military service.  This is the reason why an individual with a medical condition that does not render the individual unfit for service at the time of separation can some time later receive a compensation rating from the DVA for that service connected condition.  Had he instead reenlisted and experienced recurrent problems with his feet that interfered with duty thus rendering him unfit, then a disability discharge with compensation would have been indicated.  

The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPD states that a review of his case file confirms that he was never referred to the Disability Evaluation System (DES).  An examination of his medical records shows he was treated for various medical conditions throughout his military career; however, it appears that none were considered severe or grave enough to require he be presented before a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  The fact that a person was treated for a medical condition while on active duty does not automatically mean that the condition is unfitting for continued military service.  To be unfitting, the medical condition must be such that it by itself precludes them for reasonably fulfilling their military duties.  A medical form completed by the applicant at the time of his discharge shows that he rated his present medical condition as "good."  The preponderance of evidence in his records clearly shows he was fit for worldwide duty at the time of his voluntary discharge.  He has not submitted any material or documentation to show he was unfit under the provisions of military laws and policy at the time of his voluntary discharge which would qualify him for Disability Severance Pay.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 3 Jul 02 for review and comment 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  We see no evidence which would lead us to believe that at the time of his separation, his physical condition was determined to be a physical disability that disqualified him from worldwide military service.  Since there were no disqualifying medical conditions at the time of his separation, we see no reason why he would have been eligible for consideration in the disability evaluation system.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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 Docket Number 02-01326 in Executive Session on 20 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 02.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Jun 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 26 Jun 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 02.