RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-01886
		INDEX CODE:  108.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be changed to a disability retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His conditions of extreme back pain, chronic adjustment disorder, and elbow pain, which are service-connected, prevented him from reenlisting in the Air Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and documentation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 Aug 96 for a period of four years.  Prior to the matter under review, the applicant was promoted to the grade of senior airman.  He received three Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) in which he received overall ratings of 4, 5, 4 (1-5 (Highest)), respectively.

Applicant was released from active duty on 20 Aug 00 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service), with service characterized as honorable.  He was credited with 4 years of active duty service.

On 21 Aug 00, the applicant filed a disability claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs.  He was assigned a 10 percent rating for anxiety disorder, and a 20 percent rating for degenerative disc disease of the low back.  In Jan 01, the rating for his anxiety disorder was increased to 30 percent for a combined rating of 40 percent.  A Rating Decision, dated 23 May 02, increased his rating for his back to 40 percent, effective 28 Nov 01.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial noting that the applicant was referred to Mental Health on Jun 98 for a command‑directed evaluation because of an episode of domestic dispute (with his girlfriend) that resulted in his arrest for alleged physical assault and potential contribution of alcohol.  No mental health diagnosis, including alcohol abuse, resulted from that evaluation.  Health assessment questionnaires in Aug 98 and Apr 00 indicated that the applicant had no mental health problems and rated his mental health as excellent.  The applicant presented on 31 Mar 00 for a history of bilateral elbow pain with weightlifting diagnosed as chronic medial epicondylitis.  He was treated with anti-inflammatory medication and physical therapy.  The applicant experienced the onset of low back pain while weightlifting in May 99 (dead lifting 405 pounds).  He was evaluated on 18 May 00 for recurrent pain with weightlifting.  Each time he was treated with physical therapy and analgesic anti-inflammatory medication.  On 19 Jul 00, he underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of his spine revealing degenerative disc disease at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels associated with a bulging of the L4-5 disc making minimal contact with the right L5 nerve root.  The management of his back and elbow pain did not include duty restrictions.  There were no duty limiting physical profiles in the service medical records.

The Medical Consultant also noted that the applicant completed a DD Form 2697, Report of Medical Assessment, as part of his separation physical examination in Jun 00, reporting problems with low back pain, shin splints and bilateral elbow tendonitis.  He reported that his tendonitis gave him a lot of pain when pushing and pulling heavy pallets.  He underwent his physical examination on 22 Jun 00 and the provider reviewed and evaluated his medical conditions.  The provider recorded that he had a history of tendonitis involving both elbows (lateral epicondylitis) since April 1999 that improved with therapy but with some residual pain with repetitive movement.  A history of low back pain was first noted in May 99 when he presented to the emergency room.  Since the time of onset, he reported pain with prolonged walking or sitting.  He was seen in the clinic again on Feb 00 but was reported to have “no complaint since then with adjusting workouts.”  The physical examination of the back and elbows on 22 Jun 00 was normal.  The back disclosed a normal range of motion and was nontender.  The elbows were not tender or swollen and demonstrated a normal range of motion.  The applicant was determined to be fit for continued duty and cleared for his planned separation.

According to the Medical Consultant, at the time of the applicant's separation physical examination, he did not have any physical or mental defects which would have warranted consideration in the Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES).  Action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  In his opinion, no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommended denial indicating that a review of the case file confirms he was never referred through the Air Force DES.  The purpose of the DES is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating or retiring members who are unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating.  Those members who are separated or retired by reason of a physical disability may be eligible for certain compensation.  The decision to process a member through the military DES is determined by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when he or she is determined to be medically disqualified for continued military service.  The decision to conduct an MEB is made by the medical treatment facility providing health care to the member.

AFPC/DPPD indicated that a medical assessment completed in Jun 00 cleared the applicant's mental health status and indicated no additional risk factors.  His last performance report, which was closed out four months prior to his discharge date, clearly showed he was reasonably capable of completing his physical duties as an Air Freight Apprentice. The most current performance report coupled with the fact he elected not to reenlist signified his military career was not cut short as a result of a disqualifying medical condition.  A service member’s ability to perform his assigned duties is a main concern when referring an individual through the DES.

AFPC/DPPD stated that it appears the applicant's request for a disability retirement is primarily supported from a 40 percent combined compensable disability rating received from the DVA.  In their view, the applicant needs to understand the difference between Titles 10 and 38 of the United States Code (USC).  The Air Force and DVA disability systems operate under separate laws.  Under the Air Force system (Title 10, USC), Physical Evaluation Boards (PEBs) must determine if an individual’s medical condition renders them unfit for duty.  Although a person may have been treated for a medical condition while on active duty, it does not automatically mean the condition is unfitting for continued military service.  To be unfitting, the medical condition must be such that it by itself precludes the person from fulfilling the purpose for which he or she is employed.  If a PEB renders an unfit finding, Federal law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of the individual’s career.  Air Force disability boards can only rate unfitting medical conditions based upon the member’s medical status at the time of his or her evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at the time of the MEB/PEB.  Veterans who incur service-connected medical conditions while on active duty are authorized compensation and treatment from the DVA under the provisions of Title 38, USC.  The DVA is chartered to provide continued medical care to the service member once he or she departs active service.  Under Title 38, USC, the DVA may increase or decrease an individual’s disability rating based on the seriousness of the medical condition throughout his or her life span.  This is why the Services and DVA disability ratings sometimes differ.

According to AFPC/DPPD, the case file revealed no errors or irregularities during the applicant's voluntary discharge process that would justify a change to his military records to show he was awarded a disability retirement under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.  The Medical Consultant’s advisory accurately and explicitly explained the medical aspects of this case and they agreed with his overall comments and recommendation.

In AFPC/DPPD's view, the applicant has not submitted any material or documentation to show an injustice occurred at the time of his voluntary discharge that would justify his entitlement to a disability retirement under current federal laws and policy.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 7 Mar 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 do not find it sufficient to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).  Therefore, in the absence of evidence that, at time of his separation from active duty, the applicant was unfit to perform the duties of his rank and office, within the meaning of the law, we agree with the recommendations of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-01886 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 18 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 26 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair