RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05530 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His compensable disability rating of 20 percent be changed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes that certain medical documentation from a civilian orthopedic specialist was intentionally left out of his record when it was reviewed by the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). The diagnosis was not the actual results he and his Primary Care Manager (PCM) agreed should be stated in his MEB file. He feels his records should be corrected due to the lack of information intentionally left out of his original MEB evaluation file. The findings from the civilian specialist were not included in the original package for his back or the misdiagnosis of reactive- air-way disease; which is not really a specific diagnosis, and should be referred to as asthma due to contradictions found by the recent doctors evaluation received since his release from the Air Force. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; copies of his Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) Decisional documents; additional medical documents, and various other documents. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to the events under review, the applicant was serving in the Regular Air Force, in the grade of staff sergeant as a crew chief. On 25 Sep 09, the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) diagnosed the applicant with Scheuermann's Kyphosis/Thoracic Back Pain/Lumbar Back Pain and Reactive Airway Disease and his case was referred to the IPEB. On 27 Apr 10, the IPEB diagnosed the applicant with Thoracolumbar Back Pain associated with Scheuermann's Kyphosis and Reactive Airway Disease. They recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent. On 12 May 10, the applicant nonconcurred with their findings and his case was referred to the Formal PEB (FPEB). The applicant submitted a request to waive his right to a FPEB hearing and concurred with the findings of the IPEB. On 26 May 10, the President of the FPEB approved his request and recommended discharge with severance pay, with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent. On 26 May 10, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) directed the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent. On 28 Jun 10, the applicant was discharged with severance pay with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent. He was credited with 7 years, 10 months, and 16 days of active service. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial, stating, in part, that based on a preponderance of the evidence no error or injustice occurred during the disability process. DPSD notes that 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. As a matter of background, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the DVA disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, USC, PEBs must determine if a member's condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating. The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean that the condition is unfitting for continued military service. To be unfitting, the condition must 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 the premature termination of their career. Conversely, it is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the AF must, by law, leave off. Under Title 38, 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 complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Jan 13 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 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, the applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and we did not find the evidence provided sufficient to overcome its assessment of the case. Therefore, we agree with the OPR’s recommendation and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered an error or injustice. The applicant asserts there were missing documents and misdiagnosis of his respiratory condition during his medical evaluation; however, we agree with the OPR that based on the governing directives and laws in effect at the time, it appears that Air Force officials acted within established regulatory parameters in the administration of his medical review and separation. In addition, we did not find any evidence that would convince us that his diagnosis was inaccurate or his medical review had been compromised. In view of the above and 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-2012-05530 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 17 Jan 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jan 13. Panel Chair