RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00908
		INDEX CODE: 110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 1 Oct 00, he was medically discharged form the Air National Guard (ANG) for a medical condition called Pyoderma Gangrenosum.  On 20 September 2001, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) found his condition to be service-connected.  Therefore, he should’ve been medically retired.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, an National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, an AF Form 618, Medical Board Report, a Request and Authorization for Discharge/Assignment, and pertinent copies of a DVA rating decision.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 August 1985.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant and was released from active duty and transferred to tha Air Force Reserve on 3 December 1990.  

He enlisted in the Washington ANG (WAANG) and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt/E-5) with a date of rank (DOR) of 9 January 1999.  On 5 February 2000, he met a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) wherein he was found disqualified for worldwide duty for a condition that existed prior to service (EPTS) and recommended for medical discharge.  On 1 October 2000, he was honorably discharged for Medical Disqualification after having served 12 years, 11 months, and 16 days of combined active and ANG service.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  DPPI states the applicant’s assertion that because the DVA granted service-connection to his injury he should have been medically retired instead of discharged, is incorrect as the DVA’s and DoD’s medical findings, while similar, are distinct and separate from one another.  DPPI notes the applicant’s MEB found his injury to have existed prior to service (EPTS) and was not aggravated by service.  Therefore, in light of the MEB’s findings and because he does not meet the medical retirement standard of having 15 years of service, he is not eligible for medical retirement.

DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11 January 2005 for review and comment 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 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 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, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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-2004-00908 in Executive Session on 26 April 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 04, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 11 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Applicant”s Response, dated 10 Feb 05.