RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02835
		INDEX NUMBER:  108.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her disability discharge from the Air Force for chronic back pain be overturned and she be reinstated on active duty.

Her medical records be corrected to show that she is fit for active duty service.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant provides an overview of the events that led to her eventual discharge for medical reasons.  She states that prior to entering the Air Force, she led a very active life and all through basic training and the strenuous rigors of security forces training never had a problem with her back.  She maintains that it was almost a year after she entered active duty before her back affected her duties in any way.  Applicant recounts the medical care that she received and how it was eventually determined that she would benefit from cross training into a different Air Force Specialty Code.  Applicant states her physician sent a letter to her commander to advise of her medical condition and to encourage a recommendation for her to cross train.  After her commander did not respond, she and her physician agreed that she would have to undergo a medical evaluation board (MEB).  She states that the local MEB recommended she cross train, but it would have to be approved at HQ AFPC.  In Jan 02, she was denied cross training and advised she would be discharged.

The applicant states that she was advised she could rebut the recommendation that she be discharged.  During her preparation for the formal hearing, she asserts that she found errors and omissions in her medical records.  She and her advisor felt that certain words in her medical records made it unlikely that the Formal Board would rule in her favor.  The board determined that she should be discharged with 10% severance pay.  She does not believe that the Formal Physical Evaluation Board gave her a fair review.  She provides details of her duty performance and asserts that she was and is fit for active duty service.

The applicant provides copies of medical documents supporting her assertions regarding her medical condition, a copy of her letter to the FPEB and copies of letters that she wrote to her congressman.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 1 Dec 99.  She was discharged for disability with severance pay on 28 May 02 in the amount of $5,541.60.

Additional pertinent information pertaining to this application is contained in the evaluations prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force found at Exhibits C and D.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends that the applicant’s request be denied.

The applicant entered active duty on an enlistment with a guarantee for training and assignment in the security forces specialty.  After arriving at her first duty station, she developed back pain that persisted despite medication, physical therapy, and duty restrictions.  Her evaluation disclosed no structural abnormality or disease process to explain her persistent pain.  Although her x-rays did show a mild curvature, it was not of sufficient degree to either be formally termed scoliosis or be disqualifying in the absence of other related problems.  Her complaints of pain, especially when performing duties required in her specialty, such as prolonged standing and carrying required gear, resulted in repeated placement on physical duty limitations that prevented her from assignment to duties expected of her for over a year.  This is clearly reflected in her enlisted performance report.  When a medical condition results in physical profile limitations for one year, a medical board is required to determine whether the Air Force member is fit for duty.  The Physical Evaluation Boards determined that her symptoms of pain rendered her unfit.

Evidence in the medical record and confirmed in her letter to the BCMR indicates that she wanted to cross train into another specialty other than security forces.  However, her enlistment contract specifically stated that she would not be eligible for cross training into another specialty until she completed 59 months on active duty.  It appears from the medical record (and confirmed in her letter to the BCMR) that she was under the impression that the MEB was going to result in cross training into another specialty field.  The BCMR Medical Consultant noted that the applicant failed to show for further Physical Therapy care following initial assessments in April 2001 and again following her August 2001 referral.  He also notes that the applicant’s report to the civilian orthopedic surgeon on August 2002 stated that she had not had any pain for two years.  This calls into question the motivation of the applicant and whether her symptoms of back pain were exploited to gain eligibility for cross training before her contract allowed.

The BCMR Medical Consultant disagrees with the reasons stated by the applicant as to why she was found unfit.  He states that it was the applicant’s complaints of chronic pain over a year that led to the PEB finding her unfit.  Cross training into another field would not be expected to help her pain since her complaints of duty limiting back pain appeared to persist despite over a year of restrictions that limited her to administrative work.  Furthermore, many specialties, including administrative, medical, or other support areas require members to be able to deploy.  He agrees with the PEBs that the applicant’s condition, regardless of cause, is not compatible with the long-term rigors of military service.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends that the applicant’s requests be denied.  The applicant was referred to an MEB and the results forwarded to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  The Board found her unfit due to her chronic back pain and recommended that she be discharged with entitlement to severance pay with a 10% disability rating.  The applicant disagreed with the IPEB’s findings and requested that she appear before the Formal PEB (FPEB).

The FPEB confirmed the findings of the IPEB and also recommended the applicant’s discharge with 10% disability severance pay.  The applicant disagreed once again and submitted a rebuttal to the Secretary of the Air force Personnel Council (SAFPC).  The SAFPC having reviewed the preponderance of evidence in the applicant’s disability case, and taking into consideration her request to be returned to duty, directed that she be discharged.

AFPC/DPPD concludes that the applicant was treated fairly throughout the Air Force disability evaluation process and that she was properly rated under military disability guidelines.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 3 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

________________________________________________________________

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 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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-02835 in Executive Session on 4 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 12 Nov 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 17 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jan 03.