RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-03166
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His current retirement order be changed to reflect that his injury was combat-related.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was diagnosed with schizophrenia subsequent to a deployment to XXXX, New Jersey.  He believes that his medical condition is combat-related because it was incurred while he was deployed to Fort Dix to participate in an exercise.  His retirement order should reflect that his injury was combat-related.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served in the Regular Air Force for 13 years,      5 months, and 16 days.  

On 29 March 2007, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) forwarded his case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

On 1 May 2007, the IPEB found him unfit for duty with a 30 percent permanent disability rating.  It was determined that his disability was incurred in the line of duty, not the direct result of an armed conflict or a combat-related injury.

On 7 May 2007, the applicant's mother disagreed with the findings of the IPEB and requested a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).

On 20 July 2007, the FPEB agreed with the findings of the IPEB and found him unfit for duty with a 30 percent disability rating.  

On 10 September 2007, SAF/MRBP (SAF Personnel Council) conducted a supplemental review of the IPEB and FPEB findings and concurred with the recommendation to permanently retire the applicant with a 30 percent disability rating.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial.  DPSD states that block 10D on his retirement order was correctly annotated with the word NO, reflecting that his injury was not combat-related.  Per AFR 35-4, (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation) in order for his retirement order to be combat-related the service member would have had to have been assigned to a military occupation entitling him to hazardous duty pay and there is enough evidence of record to show that extremely hazardous duty factor was present.  The FPEB determined that his condition was not combat-related thus there was no error or injustice when his disability or retirement was processed.  

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 September 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no 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 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.  We find no evidence that places the applicant in a combat or hazardous situation; therefore, we cannot determine that his injury was, in fact, combat-related.  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-2008-03166 in Executive Session on 5 November 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 August 2008, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 10 September 2008.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 September 2008.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair