RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02112 INDEX CODE:	110.02
COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NOT INDICATED

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her records be corrected to reflect she was medically retired rather than discharged with severance pay.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her service to her country entitled her to a retirement identification (ID) card as the circumstances were out of her control.

In support of her request, the applicant provided a copy of a letter to her congressman, a letter from her former commander, copies of her Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), two letters from her doctor, a copy of her AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, with her response to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), and SAFPC’s decisional letter.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident en route from a Unit Training Assembly (UTA) on 26 Aug 02. As a result, she underwent treatments by a chiropractor and eventually underwent a Medical Evaluation Board in June 2005. She was released from active duty on 15 Aug 05 for chronic low back pain. She served for a period of 5 years, 6 months, and 5 days on active duty. She accrued a total of 2,968 retirement points and had 19 years, 15 days of satisfactory Federal Service.

On 31 Mar 05, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) reviewed her case and recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of ten (10) percent. She disagreed with the ruling and appeared before the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) with counsel on 5 May 05. The FPEB reviewed the evidence and concurred with the IPEB. She disagreed with the FPEB and submitted a rebuttal to SAFPC for

review.	SAFPC reviewed the evidence and concurred with both the IPEB and FPEB and directed discharge.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the preponderance of evidence reflects no error or injustice occurred during the disability process.

The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
She was involuntarily discharged in 2005 after injuries she received in a car accident while she was on her way home from duty. The accident was of no fault of hers, but left her with chronic lower back pain with frequent flare ups and significant depression due to the impact the injury has had on her life and career.

As a flight nurse, she was never non-current in her flying requirements. Nor was she ever overdue in any ground training items. She did not miss any UTAs. She always performed her job with 100 percent effort, reliability, skill and dedication; planning to retire after 20 years of service.

The betrayal she feels from her country after her loyal service is excruciating. As an experienced flight nurse instructor, she was always available and agreeable to finish her 20 year career either at her squadron, transfer to the clinic where physicals are performed or any other area, but was denied that option with the excuse she was not deployable.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states he does not find an error or injustice in the decisions rendered by previous boards and appellate review authorities.

The BCMR Medical Consultant empathizes with the applicant’s predicament, having completed so many years of military service. However, in the context of the requirements confronting all service members who support the Air and Space Expeditionary Force, neither previous board likely felt it

appropriate to go against the leadership in the applicant’s organization by returning her to duty, in spite of her lengthy service history.

Medical retirements cannot be awarded as a measure of a service member’s long years of honorable service, but must be based solely upon a disability, impairment, or an assessment of the medical condition(s) which cut the service member’s career short. Specifically, in order to qualify for a medical retirement, an applicant’s medical condition(s) must reach the minimum thirty (30) percent disability rating threshold. In the members who are found unfit for military service, but whose disability ratings falls short of the aforementioned 30 percent rating threshold, they are separated with severance pay. The severance payment would be the same had the applicant been discharged with a zero (0), ten (10) or even twenty (20) percent disability rating.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION:
A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 Dec 08 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). As of this date, this office has not received a response.

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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Although the Board is grateful for the applicant’s lengthy and dedicated service, her condition was not rated at the minimum required 30 percent disability threshold nor did she have the required 20 years of satisfactory service to qualify for either a disability retirement or Reserve retirement. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling
1.	
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 Docket Number BC- 2008-02112 in Executive Session on 3 March 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 30 May 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPSD, dated 5 Sep 08. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 08.
Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 26 Oct 08, w/atchs. Exhibit F.	Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
dated 5 Dec 08.
Exhibit G.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Dec 08.