RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04276 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected as follows: a. Show the correct date of her discharge. b. Show her correct rank at time of discharge. c. List all awards and decorations she was awarded or is entitled to (partially administratively corrected). d. List the training she received while on active duty (administratively corrected). 2. It appears the applicant is requesting her separation with a 20% disability rating be changed to a medical retirement with a 100% disability rating. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. Her DD Form 214 does not properly list her rank and any training she received. 2. She served on active duty longer than what is indicated on her DD Form 214. 3. She did not receive individual awards she earned from assisting with recovery from a tornado and for tackling a runaway patient from the “psych ward.” She also assisted with the recovery from a hurricane that hit Biloxi, Mississippi. In support of her appeal, the applicant submits a personal statement, copies of her DD Form 214, various service and medical records, and paperwork related to her disability discharge. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: In Apr 79, the applicant sustained a knee injury while at basic military training (BMT) that was determined to be “in the line of duty.” (The relevant facts pertaining to her injury and subsequent disability discharge are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.) On 6 Jun 83, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with severance pay with a disability rating of 20% On 21 Feb 85, she was discharged from the Air Force Reserve. On 8 Feb 11, AFPC/DPSIDR verified the applicant’s entitlement to the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR) and the Air Force Training Ribbon (AFTR). However, they were unable to verify any further service award entitlements. On 30 Mar 11, AFPC/DPSIT verified completion of the following formal training courses: 1) Basic Military Training, Apr 1979; 2) Medical Service Specialist, Jun 1979; and 3) Prequalification Ground Training/C-130 Aircraft Orientation, Aug 1979. Her DD Form 214 will be administratively corrected to reflect completion of these courses. In a memorandum dated 21 Apr 11, AFPC/DPTSCS advised the applicant that certain corrections could not be made to her DD Form 214 dated 30 Nov 79. Specifically, that her DD Form 214 was issued for a specified period of active duty and that her rank at the end of that time period was correct. Also that any future promotions, schooling, or awards could not be added to a DD Form 214 after the close out period, _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her disability separation to a medical retirement with a 100% disability rating. DPSD opines that the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or in the rating rendered at the time of the boards she met. On 14 Mar 83, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended discharge with severance pay with a combined disability rating of 20%. The IPEB awarded 10% for right patella subluxation and/or luxation, with secondary chrondromalacia patella, right knee, status post 24 Oct 80, patella shave with current subjective pain, and 10% for psychological factors affecting physical condition, associated with recurrent low back pain without clinical evidence of pathology, with moderate social and industrial impairment. The applicant non-concurred and requested a formal hearing with counsel. On 12 Apr 83, the Formal PEB (FPEB) reviewed the case and recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 20%. The applicant appealed the FPEB decision to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC). On 3 May 1983, the SAFPC directed the applicant’s discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 20%. The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFPC/DPPD evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 May 2011 for review and comment within 30 days. To date a response has not been received (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her disability separation to a medical retirement. The BCMR Medical Consultant concedes that opinions may vary regarding application of rating criteria for a given medical condition, particularly those that are prone to subjective or divergent interpretation by different examiners. However, in the applicant’s case, attention should be focused on a search for objective evidence of “recurrent subluxation or lateral instability” documented at the time of adjudication when making the determination of whether the disability should have been “slight, moderate, or severe.” In the applicant’s case, a preponderance of objective assessments of the applicant’s left knee demonstrated essentially no subluxation or instability of the knee joint, although there was notable tenderness to palpation about the patella. There was also no documented evidence of pain, impaired range of motion, or weakness precipitated by repetitive nonweight-bearing passive range of motion to suggest application of a separate disability rating at the time of the applicant’s discharge. Thus based upon the evidence available at the time of initial assessment, the Medical Consultant found no objective basis upon which to retroactively assign the applicant a higher disability rating. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Her injury was not taken care of as needed which led to an infection that almost caused the loss of her leg. She was not treated fairly compared to her male counter parts that had fewer disabilities and were rated higher. She was told she would be discharged because she was unable to perform her duties due to the injury she received at basic military training (BMT). It took over a year and six months to see that her injury was one of severity. Her DD Form 214 should say “honorable discharge” due to a “service connected disability,” and her rank should reflect “sergeant.” If possible she would like her last name changed to her maiden name, because it is confusing with all of her DVA communication reflecting a different name. The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ 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. After carefully reviewing the evidence of record, and the applicant’s submission, to include her response to the Air Force evaluations, we are not persuaded that action to change her discharge to a medical retirement is warranted. 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant requests that her disability rating of 20% be changed to 100% in order to qualify for a medical retirement. However, we find no evidence to suggest the disability rating she was assigned at the time of her separation was in error. The applicant’s rating was based on her impairment at the time of separation. We note the DVA is empowered to conduct periodic re- evaluations for the purpose of adjusting (increase or decrease) the disability rating award, as the level of impairment may vary (improve or worsen) over the lifetime of the veteran. Regarding the applicant’s request to correct her date of discharge and rank at the time of discharge, the applicant has been advised that these corrections could not be made to her DD Form 214, dated 30 Nov 79, as future promotions, schooling, or awards could not be added to a DD Form 214 after the close out period. We also note the appropriate offices of primary responsibility have addressed the applicant’s requests regarding entitlement to various awards and decorations and formal training courses. Her records will be administratively corrected to include the SAEMR and AFTR and that she completedBasic Military Training in April 1979, Medical Service Specialist training in June 1979, and Prequalification Ground Training/C-130 Aircraft Orientation in August 1979. Regarding her request to change her last name, the applicant has no continuing affiliation with the Air Force as a Reserve member or retiree, therefore, changing her name in the service record after the fact is not appropriate. AFI 36-2608, Military Personnel Records System states that the name is not corrected for former members unless it was originally recorded in error. Therefore, aside from the administrative corrections noted above, we find no basis to recommend further relief in this case. 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 Docket Number BC-2010-04276 in Executive Session on 21 Feb 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2010-04276 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 3 Jan 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 11. Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Nov 11, w/atch. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 11 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Nov 11, w/atchs.