RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02912 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her official records be corrected to reflect that she was medically retired with a 40 percent disability rating. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her 9 Dec 10 Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) was unfair. It gave her a 20 percent disability rating for her fibromyalgia Syndrome when it should have given her a 30 percent rating. The FPEB used words like “episodic,” but failed to mention that in her records it also said the episodes were daily. The Board paid no attention to the case. She received a 40 percent disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and believes that a permanent retirement with 30 percent disability rating is appropriate. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty on 18 Feb 99, and was initially diagnosed with fibromyalgia in 2006. On 10 Sep 08, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) referred her to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), based on the diagnoses of metabolic syndrome and fibromyalgia. On 18 Nov 08, the applicant met an Informal PEB (IPEB which found her unfit for duty and recommended temporary retirement with a disability rating of 40 percent per the schedule for rating disabilities in use by the DVA IAW NDAA 2008. The applicant agreed with the findings and recommendation of the IPEB. On 12 Jan 09, the applicant was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), with a disability rating of 40 percent for fibromyalgia. On 16 Aug 10, the applicant underwent a scheduled TDRL re- evaluation exam. The IPEB recommended the applicant be removed from the TDRL and discharged with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating. The applicant did not agree with their findings and recommendation On 9 Dec 10, a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) reviewed her case and also recommended her removal from the TDRL and discharge with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating. On 15 Dec 11, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, after completing a review of all the facts and evidence of the case, to include the applicant’s contention that she deserved a permanent retirement at 40 percent disability rating, directed she be discharged and receive severance pay, with a disability rating of 20 percent. On 10 Jan 12, the applicant was removed from the TDRL and discharged by reason of physical disability, rated at 20 percent, with entitlement to disability severance pay. She was credited with 9 years, 10 months, and 25 days of active service, and 12 years, 10 months, and 23 days of service for the purpose of computing her severance pay. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is included at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. USAF Disability Boards must rate disabilities based on a member’s condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at the time. It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the AF must, by law, leave off. The DVA may rate any service-connected condition based upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the severity of a condition. This often results in different ratings by the two agencies. The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time of separation. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD 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 21 Aug 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-02912 in Executive Session on 28 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02912 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 1 Aug 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Aug 12.