RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02368
				INDEX CODE:  108.00
	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN	   	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His name be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), rather than being discharged with severance pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received a disability discharge with a 10 percent disability rating and separated with Disability Severance pay.  However, several disabling conditions were deleted, without explanation and if they had been properly considered by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as required by law and regulation, he contends these additional unfitting conditions would have increased his total rating to be at least 30 percent and he would have been placed on the TDRL.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman on 16 March 2000 for a period of four (4) years.  The applicant prior to enlisting in the Air Force served two years in the Air National Guard (ANG).

During the time the applicant was on active duty, he experienced a variety of medical problems including foot pain related to his flat feet, headaches, neurocardiogenic syncope (vaso-vagal syncope), and depression.

The applicant met the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) on 23 April 2002 for Neurocardiogenic syncope originating in approximately September 2000, Pes Planovalgus which existed prior to service (EPTS), Depressive disorder Not Otherwise Specified, with an approximate date of origin of August 2001, and mixed headaches syndrome, responding, originating in 2000.  His case was referred 
to the PEB and the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) considered his case on 6 May 2002.  The IPEB found him unfit for continued service and recommended discharge with severance pay for Neurocardiogenic syncope associated with depressive disorder with a 10 percent disability rating.  He was not rated for Pes Planovalgus EPTS or headaches which were controlled.  The applicant concurred with the findings of the IPEB and waived his rights to a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).

On 23 July 2002, the applicant was honorably discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent.  He received $8,811.00 in severance pay.  He served 2 years, 4 months and 8 days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The Chief, Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states the applicant experienced a variety of intertwined problems while on active duty that interfered with his continuing on active duty.  A preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that the applicant had a history of foot problems and depression and probably neurocardiogenic syncope prior to service.  In reaching their findings, the PEB decided to consider the applicant’s intertwined unfitting conditions together in arriving at a disability rating.  The BCMR Medical Consultant concurs with the findings of the IPEB that the applicant’s conditions did not warrant a disability retirement or placement on the TDRL and the discharge with severance pay was appropriate.  Therefore, based on the evidence presented, the BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denying the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPD states the purpose of the disability evaluation system (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.  The members who are separated or retired for reason of a physical disability may be eligible for certain disability compensation.  The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) determines if the servicemember should be processed through the DES to determine if the service member’s medical condition renders them fit or unfit for continued military service.  The medical treatment facility that provides health care to the sevicemember makes the decision whether or not to conduct an MEB.

DPPD further states the applicant was treated fairly throughout his disability evaluation processing and was rated properly under the federal disability guidelines, and he was afforded the opportunity for further review under federal laws and policy.  DPPD concurs with the Medical Consultant’s disposition of the applicant’s case and based on the evidence submitted recommend denying the requested relief (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

On 20 December 2002, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded that his disability rating should be increased to the extent that would qualify him for placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).  Although it is apparent that while on active duty the applicant experienced problems relating to a variety of medical conditions, many of which existed prior to his entry on active duty, it appears that his case was properly processed and adjudicated by the Air Force Disability Evaluation System which ultimately determined that his various conditions warranted a 10 percent disability rating for neurocardiogenic syncope associated with depressive disorder.  The applicant’s contention that his numerous medical conditions were not properly rated is duly noted.  However, as indicated by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant, it appears that his various conditions were intertwined and as such, the IPEB rated them together in order to determine his disability rating.  While it is true that the IPEB found that the applicant has pes planovalgus, they determined that this condition existed prior to service.  Additionally, they found his headaches were under control; therefore, although these two conditions could have been unfitting, the IPEB found neither condition was compensable or ratable.  Furthermore, we note that the applicant was given the opportunity to refute the findings of the IPEB and demand a Formal Hearing; however, he concurred with the findings of the IPEB.  Therefore, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The Board is not persuaded that the applicant has established that the he has been the victim of an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rational expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant failed to sustain his burden of establishing the existence of either an error or an injustice warranting favorable action o these requests. 

_________________________________________________________________

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 02-02368 in Executive Session on 11 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 19 Ju1 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR, Medical Consultant, dated
				11 Oct 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 5 Dec 02.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.