RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00388
		INDEX CODE:  108.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since she was released from the hospital out of her sick bed to be discharged, her records should be corrected to reflect a medical discharge for anatomical loss of a creative organ (ovary).

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, a statement from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), and an Air Force Reserve survey.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on 22 May 82, and voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 3 Oct 82.  She was honorably released from active duty on 24 Mar 85 under the provisions of AFR 36-12 (Involuntary Release:  Not Qualified for Temporary Promotion).  She was credited with 5 years, 11 months, and 20 days of total active duty service.

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’s service medical records were not available for review.  She provided documentation providing evidence that the DVA had awarded a 10 percent disability rating effective 24 Feb 88 for anatomic loss of a creative organ.  She apparently had undergone removal of one ovary while in the Air Force.  After discharge from the Air Force, she underwent subsequent surgeries resulting in removal of the other ovary and her uterus.

According to the Medical Consultant, the mere presence of a physical defect or condition does not qualify a member for disability retirement or discharge.  The physical defect or condition must render the member unfit for duty, and their military career must have been cut short due to the service‑connected disability.  The surgical removal of ovaries, fallopian tubes, or the uterus does not render a member unfit for continued military service and does not qualify a member for disability discharge or retirement.  The DVA on the other hand, does rate and compensate for loss of creative organs.  In his view, no change in the records is warranted.

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

AFPC/DPPD recommended denial noting that the applicant was never referred through the Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES).  According to AFPC/DPPD, 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 disability 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 disqualified for continued military service.  The decision to conduct an MEB is made by the medical treatment facility providing health care to the member.  The applicant’s military personnel records included a medical examination, dated 13 Mar 85, which found her fit for worldwide duty with no disqualifying physical profiles.  The examination revealed she did not possess any physical or mental reasons to warrant action under AFR 35-4.  In order to qualify for a disability discharge, the applicant would have had to attain a serious or life threatening medical condition prior to her release from active duty.  Medical documentation appeared to reflect she was reasonably capable of performing her assigned duties right up until the time of her release from active duty.

AFPC/DPPD indicated that the purpose of the Air Force DES is to remove military personnel with unfitting medical conditions from the active strength roles.  The fact that a person may have been treated for a medical condition does not automatically mean the condition was 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.  Air Force disability boards can only rate unfitting medical conditions based upon the individual’s medical status at the time of their evaluation; in essence a snapshot of the condition at that time.  If a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) renders a finding of unfit, Federal law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of the member’s career.  It must be noted that the applicant’s involuntary administrative discharge action was for her failure to meet her promotion opportunity to the grade of first lieutenant, and not for a physical disability.  Disability compensation is authorized under the provisions of Chapter 61, Title 10, United States Code (USC).

The DVA, however, is chartered to provide continual medical care to veterans once they depart active duty.  The applicant’s referral to the medical treatment she received following her release from active duty does not qualify her for compensation under Title 10.  Service-connected medical conditions may be treated and compensated under Title 38, USC.  Under Title 38, USC, the DVA may increase or decrease an individual’s disability rating based on the seriousness of the medical condition throughout their life span.  This is why the Services and DVA disability ratings sometimes differ.

According to AFPC/DPPD, the limited military personnel records made available revealed no errors or irregularities during the applicant’s involuntary administrative discharge process that would justify a change to her military records.  The Medical Consultant explained the medical aspects of the case, and they wholeheartedly agreed with his advisory.  In their view, the applicant has not submitted any material or documentation to show an injustice occurred at the time of her involuntary administrative discharge process that would warrant a change to her records to reflect she was awarded a disability discharge under AFR 35-4.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and furnished a response, indicating that she disagreed that nothing untoward occurred when she was discharged.  She was notified while she was in the hospital that she was being discharged and went from the hospital to the administrative section to sign her separation orders.  She was still ill when she received her final pay and drove herself home.  The medical officials at the base were in such a hurry to fulfill the command order that they did not give her a formal physical and would not have even placed her in the hospital in the first place if not for the intervention of civilian doctors.  She is not merely seeking change in her status because of the subsequent hysterectomy that she had to undergo due to infections in both her fallopian tubes leading to her ovaries, but also due to chronic left side pain and the imbalance in her hormones which affected her performance and was largely untreated by the Air Force.  At the time she was discharged, she had no idea what was causing her problems but 18 years later, after many doctors, procedures, and tests, she has a more definite opinion as to what is her case.  Because she thinks that the Air Force should have treated and at least determined what was causing her problem before discharging her, she respectfully requests that her discharge status be changed. 

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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 her separation from active duty, the applicant was unfit to perform the duties of her 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 her burden of establishing that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-00388 in Executive Session on 27 May 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 24 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 14 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 29 Apr 03.

                                   
                                   Chair