RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2002-02744

	 	COUNSEL:  XXXX

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 27 November 1982 discharge for completion of term of service be changed to a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While on active duty, he was injured and under medical care.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits extracts from his Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) medical records, which includes a copy of the DVA Decision, dated 21 March 1984, awarding him a 10% rating for conjunctivitis.  In addition, he submits extracts from his military and civilian medical records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 April 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years.  He entered his last enlistment on 28 October 1977, and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant.

He underwent a separation physical on 12 November 1982, and was found qualified for worldwide duty/separation.

He was honorably discharged from the Regular Air Force on 27 November 1982, under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Completed Extended Enlistment).  He completed 8 years, 7 months, and 13 days of active service.

On 28 November 1982, he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve for a period of three years.

On 21 March 1984, the DVA awarded him a combined disability rating of 10% for conjunctivitis (red irritated eyes) and 0% for traumatic arthritis.

He was reassigned from the Ready Reserve to inactive status on 3 November 1986, for non-participation.

On 1 May 1987, he was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve.  He completed a total of 10 years, 7 months, and 13 days of combined satisfactory service in the Regular Air Force and Air Force Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that while the applicant had allergic conjunctivitis while on active duty, the condition was not unfitting for continued military service at the time he was separated from the Regular Air Force.  In fact, he continued to serve in the Air Force Reserve accruing two additional years of satisfactory service.

The BCMR Medical Consultant further states that the reason the applicant could be found fit for duty by the Air Force and later be granted a service-connected disability by the DVA lies in understanding the differences between Title 10, U.S.C., and Title 38, U.S.C.  Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 61, is the federal status that charges the Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and vital force.  Whereas, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that are not unfitting for military service.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant was never referred through the Air Force Disability Evaluation System.  In addition, he was cleared for worldwide duty/separation prior to his discharge from the Regular Air Force.  Although he was treated for various medical conditions while on active duty, nothing in the record points toward any unfitting medication conditions that would have precluded him from performing his military duties.

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 7 March 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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.  The applicant contends that while on active duty, he was injured and under medical care.  However, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and his submission, we are not persuaded that at the time of his 1982 discharge he had a medical condition that was unfitting for continued military service.  To the contrary, he underwent a separation physical prior to his discharge and was found qualified for worldwide duty.  In addition, immediately following his discharge, he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve where he served until 1987.  It appears the applicant believes the DVA's decision to award him an overall combined compensable disability rating of 10% substantiates that his condition should have warranted his disability discharge.  However, we note that although the Air Force is required to rate disabilities in accordance with the DVA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, the DVA operates under a totally separate system with a different statutory basis.  In this respect, we note that the DVA rates for any and all service-connected conditions, to the degree they interfere with future employability, without consideration of fitness.  Whereas, the Air Force, upon a finding of unfitness, rates a member's disability based on the degree of severity at the time of separation.  In the applicant's case, the Air Force determined that he was fit and qualified for worldwide duty at the time of his separation.  We, therefore, agree with the opinions and recommendations of the appropriate offices of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-02744 in Executive Session on 24 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 4 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.