ADDENDUM TO 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1980-01348
		INDEX CODE:  108.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

	MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 Nov 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to reflect that she was discharged from the Air Force with a disability retirement, rated at 100%.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 Apr 72.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant on 1 Sep 74.  On 4 Jun 75, she was notified by her commander that he was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force in accordance with AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-4h, Apathy and Defective Attitude.  The specific reasons for this action were: on 8 Dec 72, she was identified as a drug abuser and entered into the drug rehabilitation program; on 21 Dec 72, she was counseled for numerous incidents of tardiness and failure to repair; on 4 Jan 73, she was administered Article 15 punishment for failure to go, in which she received a fine of $25 and suspended reduction to  E-2; on 26 Feb 73, she failed to show for a dental appointment; on 6 Mar 73, she was counseled regarding a positive result in drug urinalysis testing; on 29 May 73, she was counseled regarding drug urinalysis testing; on 31 Jul 73, she was counseled for showing up late for work; on 15 Jul 74, she was counseled for failure to report to duty on time; on 11 Aug 74, she wrote a dishonored check; on 11 Sep 74, she failed to report to duty on time; on 25 Sep 74, she was counseled for habitually being late to work; on 26 Nov 74, she wrote a dishonored check; on 30 Dec 74, she reported late to work; on 10 Jan 75, she was counseled for taking excessive time from work for personal business on 13 Jan 75; she was counseled for not returning to duty after sick call; on 15 Jan 75, she was reprimanded for failure to report to work on time; on 25 Feb 75, she was counseled for coming to work late on 24 and 25 Feb 75; on 14 Mar 75, she was counseled for failure to repair; on 17 Mar 75, she was counseled for reporting late to work; on 8 Apr 75, she received Article 15 punishment for making a false writing with intent to defraud, in which she was reduced to E-3 and forfeited $100 per month for two months; on 9 May 75, she wrote a dishonored check.  

Her commander recommended a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  She was advised of her rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.  A discharge evaluation officer interviewed the applicant and recommended she be honorably discharged without probation and rehabilitation.  In a legal review of the case, the assistant staff judge advocate, found the case legally sufficient and stated that although the information in her file clearly supported a general discharge, in light of the evaluation officer's recommendation, only an honorable discharge, could be directed.  The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that she be honorably discharged without probation and rehabilitation.  Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 24 Jun 75.  She served 3 years, 2 months, and 18 days on active duty.  

On 2 May 79, applicant submitted an application to the AFBCMR requesting medical discharge with 100% disability.  On 16 Jul 80, her request was denied.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding his previous submission and the rationale for the Board's decision, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit D.  Her 15 Aug 03, request for reconsideration was denied based upon the fact that she submitted no new evidence in support of her request (Exhibits E and F).  On 4 May 05, a request for reconsideration was submitted through her Congressman.  Attached to her request, applicant provided a recent Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) appeals decision.  Her Congressman's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states the fact that she has been granted service connection for her disability by the DVA does not entitle her to Air Force disability compensation.  The military service disability systems and the DVA disability systems are complementary systems not intended to be duplicative.  Operating under different laws for a different purpose, determinations made by the DVA under Title 38 are not determinative or binding on decisions made by the services operating under Title 10.  The mere fact that the DVA may grant service connection following separation does not establish eligibility for similar action from the service.  The military disability system under Title 10, only offers compensation for those diseases or injuries which specifically rendered the member unfit for continued active service, were the cause of the termination of their career, and then only for the degree if impairment present at the time of separation.  There must be a medical condition that prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank and experience.  The DVA is chartered to offer compensation and care to eligible veterans without regard to whether it was unfitting for continued service.  The DVA is also empowered to reevaluate veterans periodically for the purpose of changing their disability awards if their level of impairment varies over time.  By law, payment of DVA compensation and military disability pay is prohibited.  The presence of medical conditions that were not unfitting while in service, and were not the cause of separation or retirement, that later progress in severity causing disability resulting in service connected DVA compensation is not a basis to retroactively grant military disability discharge or compensation.  

Although she was treated for various gynecologic conditions while in service, these did not interfere with duties on a sustained or significant basis, did not result in documented duty restrictions, and just prior to her administrative discharge, comprehensive gynecological evaluation found no organic pathology.  The separation examination and review of the service medical records finds no medical condition that warranted referral for evaluation in the Disability Evaluation System.  She was hospitalized two years after separation and treated for tubo-ovarian abscess formation requiring surgical removal of her uterus, ovaries, and fallopian tubes.  Appeal through the DVA reversed prior denials of service connection retroactive to the time of her separation from the Air Force.  Non-unfitting service connected conditions that progress following separation do not qualify for retroactive DoD disability compensation under Title 10.

The Medical Consultant's evaluation, is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded that she was not fit for duty because she was put on casual status and on light duty for the last year of her four year tour.  She reported to the hospital every morning before reporting to duty picking up trash in the yard.  This was her job since she was not able to perform her duties as an inventory specialist.  The doctors at the naval Regional Medical Center falsified the report when they saw she was infected.  That very day, with stitches in her stomach, she was ordered to report for work.  Her commander offered her an early honorable discharge since she was having so many medical problems.  She was in a lot of pain and agreed.  The Medical Consultant focuses on her drug abuse.  Applicant states if her drug abuse was so bad then it can still be stated she was unfit for duty.  

Her complete response is appended at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting corrective action.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we do not find her assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  We see no evidence that would lead us to believe a physical condition existed at the time of her separation that would have disqualified her from worldwide military service.  Therefore, we see no reason why she would have been eligible for consideration in the disability evaluation system.  It appears that the actions taken to effect her discharge were not improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time.  The applicant points to the disability assessment and rating 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 base rating decisions on the degree of impairment for performance of duties.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, 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-1980-01348 in Executive Session on 13 Oct 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit D.  Record of Proceedings, dated 16 Jul 80, w/Exhibits.
    Exhibit E.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Aug 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 18 May 04.
	Exhibit G.  Congressional Inquiry, dated 4 May 05, w/atchs.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 Aug 05.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 1 Sep 05.
	Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Sep 05.