RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01614
		INDEX CODE:  108.02
		COUNSEL:  XXXXX

		HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her disability discharge with severance pay be changed to reflect that she was medically retired.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) rated her at 30 percent for the same condition she was discharged for.

In support of her request, applicant provided her DVA rating decision, documentation associated with her disability processing, her Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered between 30 Dec 87 and 31 Oct 98, recognition and award certificates, Letters of Appreciation, her decorations and medals, extracts from her medical records, and a copy of her DD Form 214.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 30 Dec 87.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Apr 95.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was convened on 24 Apr 01 and referred her case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of Celiac Sprue, refractory, with steatorrhea (fat-laden bowel movements).  On 11 May 01, the IPEB found that her medical condition did not prevent her from reasonably performing her duties and recommended that she be returned to duty, with cross training.  Additional information was provided and the IPEB reconsidered her case on 15 Jun 03 and recommended that she be discharged with severance pay with a compensable rating of 10 percent.  On 2 Jul 01, the USAF PEB considered the applicant's case and recommended that she be discharged with severance pay with a compensable rating of 10 percent.  The applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the PEB.  She was discharged on 29 Aug 01.  She served 13 years and 8 months on active duty.

Subsequent to her discharge from the Air Force, the DVA assigned the applicant a rating of 30 percent for celiac spur with steatorrhea and gastroesphageal reflux disorder, 30 percent for migraine headaches, 10 percent for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and 10 percent for back strain, for a combined rating of 60 percent.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states the applicant was disability discharged with celiac sprue.  This condition interfered with her qualifications for flight duty but was not otherwise severe enough to prevent her from performing general military duties, participating in extracurricular activities, and attending college.  A diagnosis of celiac sprue can be disqualifying for military service since dietary restrictions place unreasonable requirements on the military to accommodate the member in deployed environments.  Although she had a variety of other medical conditions, none was unfitting for continued military duty including her history of gastroesophageal reflux.  The PEB appropriately concluded her celiac sprue was mildly disabling if at all and rated her condition at 10% using VASRD code 7323.  In her request for an increase in her Air Force disability rating, she submits a DVA rating decision as evidence of an Air Force error.  The DVA rated her combined gastrointestinal conditions of gastroesphageal reflux together with celiac sprue with a 30% evaluation using VASRD code 7307.  The Air Force PEB did not find her gastroesphageal reflux disease unfitting and evidence of record shows this condition was well controlled with medication.  Evidence of record establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that she was properly evaluated and rated and that separation for physical disability with a 10% rating was proper.  The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states her disability was more severe than the Air Force found while she was on active duty.  The DVA used evidence from her service medical records to determine the severity of her disability.  Her condition was not rated by the DVA for a condition that deteriorated after discharge but for the severity of the condition while she was still on active duty.  Her condition of celiac sprue was determined to be the same as it was on active duty.  Her complete submission is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________
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.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the applicant's disability processing and the rating she received at final disposition was contrary to the governing Air Force instruction and the law.  The applicant points to the disability assessments and ratings she received from the DVA to support her claim.  In this regard, we are constrained to note that by law, the DVA rates service-connected conditions on the basis of social and industrial adaptability while the services assign ratings based on the degree of impairment for performance of duties.  Therefore, it is entirely possible that the applicant's unfitting condition was rated at 10% while she received a higher rating from the DVA.  In view of the above, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office 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 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-2003-01614 in Executive Session on 19 Feb 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Dec 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Jan 04.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair