RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02630
		INDEX CODE:  107.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge from the Air Force be changed to reflect that she was medically retired.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Subsequent to her discharge she was assigned a disability rating of 30 percent by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA).  

In support of her request, applicant provided documentation associated with her DVA rating decision; and a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty. Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 3 Jan 89.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 3 Jan 92.  She was discharged on 1 Feb 98 at the completion of her required term of service.  She served 9 years and 29 days on active duty.

On 15 Jul 99, the DVA assigned the applicant an evaluation of sciatica at 10 percent disabling and a evaluation of a right rotator cuff injury as 20 percent disabling for a combined disability rating of 30 percent.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states that the applicant had intermittent low back pain associated with pain radiation into her leg.  Her episodes were brief and occurred roughly annually.  Three months prior to her planned separation, she fell on ice and sustained a strain of the ligaments of her right shoulder (rotator cuff).  Her condition resolved with physical therapy and the records document she was pain free with a normal range of motion.  Her shoulder injury was not unfitting for continued service.  Following discharge she was properly rated and compensated by the DVA.  For an individual to be considered unfit for military service, there must be a medical condition so severe that it prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank and experience.  In this case, her conditions did not render her unfit for continued service.  Because a person can acquire physical conditions that, although not unfitting at the time of separation, may later progress in severity and alter the individual's lifestyle, 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 soon thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for the service connected, but not militarily unfitting condition.  Evidence of record establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that she was fit at the time of her separation for continued service and that no error or injustice occurred in this case.  The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD noted numerous administrative discrepancies within the applicant's separation documents and states that her request for disability is primarily supported by her DVA evaluation.  She apparently believes that since her DVA rating now equates to 30 percent she is now eligible for an Air Force disability retirement.  In order to qualify for an Air Force disability retirement, she would have had to been referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) with a serious life threatening medical condition with an overall disability rating of at least 30 percent prior to her release form active duty.  Her records show she was reasonably capable of performing her military duties right up until the time of her involuntary release from active duty.  The fact that a person may have a medical condition 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.  DPPD found no reason why her records should be amended to reflect she was awarded a disability retirement under military disability laws and policy.  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 7 Feb 03 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 error or injustice.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the applicant's disability processing and the final disposition of her case were in error or contrary to the governing Air Force regulations, which implement the law.  We agree with the opinions and recommendations 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 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 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 BC-2002-00999 in Executive Session on 6 May 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, Dated 28 Jan 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Feb 03.