RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04170 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her discharge with disability severance pay be changed to a medical retirement. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was discharged with severance pay from the Air Force/Air National Guard; however, she should have been medically retired. All of her medical issues were present when she was honorably discharged, and she was rated at 60 percent disability by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). She has been rated at 90 percent by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, documents pertaining to her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), DVA records, and a letter from her husband. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 Aug 03, the applicant entered active duty. On 18 Apr 05, the applicant met an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), which found her unfit and recommended she be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a disability rating of 60 percent. She concurred with the decision on 22 Apr 05. On 22 Jun 05, she was released from active duty and placed on the TDRL with a 60 percent disability for pulmonary embolism. On 8 Jan 07, a TDRL re-evaluation was conducted, and at that time there was no evidence of persistent or recurrent embolism. Although no longer presenting a current functional impairment, it was determined that her predisposition for recurrence (5 to 20 percent) posed an unreasonable risk for return to duty. On 24 Jan 07, the applicant mailed in her concurrence to the Board’s findings and elected to receive the severance pay. On 18 Feb 07, she was removed from the TDRL and discharged with severance pay in the grade of master sergeant by reason of physical disability with a zero percent disability rating. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean the condition is unfitting for continued military service. To be unfitting, the condition much be such that it alone precludes the member from fulfilling their military duties. If the Board renders a finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate compensation due to premature termination of their career. Further, it must be noted the USAF disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member's condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. It is the charge of the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) to pick up where the Air Force must, by law, leave off. Under Title 38, Veterans’ Benefits, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the severity of the condition. This often results in different ratings by the two agencies. The applicant was not boarded for a bipolar or anxiety disorder for which the DVA has rated 70 percent and 30 percent, respectfully. The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 2 Aug 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 15 days. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-2010-04170 in Executive Session on 1 Sep 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 19 Nov 10. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Aug 11.