RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01519
				INDEX CODE:  108.00
				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect she received a medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not aware at the time of separation that she was eligible for medical retirement status or compensation until an acquaintance informed her that she had received compensation for a similar circumstance.  The applicant submitted an application to the Veterans Affairs and was awarded 50 percent disability effective 5 February 1996.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 February 1976 for a period of four years as an airman basic.

During the applicant’s military career, she was treated for a variety of medical conditions.  The applicant had an appendectomy in March 1979, a laparoscopy in December 1981, a cholecystectomy in May 1980, elective sterilization in May 1980 and hysterectomy in 1983.

On 21 February 1985, the applicant requested to be separated under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Chapter 3, Section B, paragraph 3-19 (Hardship).  The applicant’s request was approved and she voluntarily separated on 30 April 1985, with an honorable discharge.  Applicant served nine years, two months and four days of active military service.

Upon application to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), the applicant was awarded a 50 percent disability rating for service connected disability for the anatomic loss of a creative organ.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states 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 in Title 10 USC and Title 38 USC.  Title 10 USC, Chapter 61 is the federal statue that charges the Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and vital force.  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.  Once the determination is made to find the servicemember unfit a disability rating percentage is assigned based upon the member’s condition at the time of permanent disposition.  Title 38 USC was established because a person’s physical condition that was not unfitting at the time of separation, may later progress in severity and alter the servicemember’s lifestyle and employability.  Title 38 USC governs the DVA compensation system in awarding disability percentage ratings for conditions that are not unfitting for military service.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant, based on the evidence presented, 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 when a member is determined to be disqualified 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.

Under the provisions of Title 38, USC, servicemembers who incur service-connected medical conditions while on active duty are authorized compensation and treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  The DVA is chartered to provide 
continual medical care for veterans once they leave active duty.  Under Title 38, USC, the DVA may increase or decrease a member’s disability rating based on the seriousness of the medical condition throughout his or her life span.  DPPD concurs with the Medical Consultant’s deposition of the applicant’s case and, based on the evidence submitted, they recommend denying the requested relief (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

On 3 October 2003, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant requested and was granted a hardship separation.  Although, she underwent several medical procedures, she fully recuperated and was returned to duty.  Title 10, USC, Chapter 61 is the federal statue that charges the Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and vital force.  For an individual to be considered unfit for military service, there must be a medical condition so severe that is prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank and experience.  Evidence of record indicates the applicant was fit and medically qualified for continued military service at the time of her separation.  Therefore, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01519 in Executive Session on 13 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603::

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR, Medical Consultant, dated
				6 Aug 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 16 Sep 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Oct 03.

					Panel Chair