RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01796
		INDEX CODE:  108.01
		COUNSEL:  
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reinstated onto active duty and undergo a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) evaluation for either a medical discharge with severance pay or a medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While serving on an active duty assignment during the period of 26 May 97 through 22 Apr 00, she injured her back.  After the injury did not resolve by itself, she sought medical treatment and was placed on a medical profile due to exacerbated chronic pain experienced with prolonged standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, and pulling.  She started physical therapy and an MRI was requested.  She was involuntarily separated while her medical treatment was ongoing.  Ten days after her separation the MRI was taken.  She was allowed to continue her physical therapy for 90 days, after which time she was referred to and continued to receive care at the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) hospital.  

She requested Reserve placement and was scheduled for a physical evaluation.  However, upon reporting for her scheduled appointment, there was no record of an appointment for her, even though she was assured that all the paperwork was done.  She continued in her Reserve status hoping that in time her injury would heal.  Her annual physical was due in April 2001.  Because her injury had not healed like she hoped, she voluntarily withdrew so that her medical problems would not become an issue.  She has come to the understanding that since she was receiving physical therapy she should have been medically evaluated.  She believes that she was denied the MEB process and was not properly counseled on the options and rights she was entitled to.

In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement, her application Health Professions Program application, copies of her Officer Performance Reports closing 22 Apr 98 and 22 Apr 99, extracts from her medical records, a copy of her duty schedule, and documents associated with her request for copies of her medical records; and, a copy of her DD 

Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on 21 Jan 97.  She has been progressively promoted to the grade of captain, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Oct 02.  She was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty (EAD) on 23 Apr 97.  Her request for extension of her Specified Period of Service Contract (SPTC) was denied and on 22 Apr 00, she was released from active duty and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).  On 7 Aug 00, she was assigned to a Category "A" Ready Reserve assignment at Keesler AFB, MS.  She currently has a Reserve mandatory separation date of 19 Sep 11.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The consultant states that despite the physical limitations described in the physical profiles issued by her therapist in the final 2 1/2 months of her contract, she continued to perform her assigned duties, did not require hospitalizations, and did not have frequent absences from work for medical reasons.  A year later, the Reserves issued a physical profile indicating that she no longer met medical standards for deployment and she was disqualified from Reserve duty participation, presumably because of her low back pain.  The medical record entries make no mention of any specified injury or trauma until her separation physical in March 2000 where she reports the event.  Although she had been placed on a physical profile restricting her from strenuous activity (the renewal of which had been denied) there was no convincing evidence that her back pain was unfitting for continued service.  The mere presence of a physical defect or condition does not qualify a member for disability retirement or discharge.  The defect or condition must render the member unfit for duty, and their military career must have been cut short due to the service connected disability.  At the time of her separation, her low back pain was not considered disqualifying for continued service.  For members who are separating, medical hold is not approved for the purpose of evaluating or treating chronic conditions, performing diagnostic studies, elective surgery or its convalescence, other elective treatment of remedial defects, or for conditions that do not otherwise warrant termination of active duty through the Disability Evaluation System (DES).  At the time of her separation, her low back pain would not have otherwise resulted in termination of her career had her SPTC been extended.  The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states that a physical examination conducted on 15 Mar 00 indicates she was medically qualified for separation from active duty.  Since the medical authority addressed her back pain at the time of her separation physical, it appears they felt she was reasonably capable of performing her duties and that her condition was not career or life threatening.  Her present medical status had not curtailed her from performing her current Reserve military duties.  A recent performance report for the period 23 Apr 99 through 18 Mar 01, reflects nothing but laudatory comments concerning her job performance to include the highest attainable ratings.  The fact that she has been treated for a medical condition does not automatically mean the condition is unfitting for military service.  Military disability law and policy stipulates that disability boards can only rate unfitting medical conditions based upon an individual's status at the time of his or her evaluation.  Her records show she was reasonably capable of performing her military duties right up to her involuntary separation, and her military career was not cut short as a result of her back injury.  She has not submitted any material or documentation to show an injustice occurred at the time of her release from active duty.  The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that the discharge was within the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors in her discharge processing.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded and states that she does not agree with the facts and misleading discussions of the evaluations.  In further support of her request she provided documents associated with her request for Congressional inquiry, extracts from her DVA medical records, additional documents from her military medical records, and documentation associated with her search for employment.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the reason for her discharge from the Air Force was inappropriate, erroneous, or that she was denied rights to which she was entitled.  We see no evidence which would lead us to believe that a physical disability existed at the time of her separation that would have disqualified her from worldwide military service.  Therefore, since there were no disqualifying medical conditions at the time of her separation, we see no reason why she would have been eligible for consideration in the disability evaluation system.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 02-01796 in Executive Session on 26 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 29 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 12 Sep 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Sep 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Sep 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs

                                   Vice Chair