RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01580 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be medically discharged ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has been deemed 100 percent service-connected disabled by the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA). The applicant does not provide any additional evidence in support of his appeal. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation at Exhibits C, D, and E. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTT indicates they cannot address whether the applicant is warranted a medical discharge; however, they can address the aspects of his Mandatory Separation Date (MSD). The applicant became a twice deferred officer in 2010 and was notified he qualified for sanctuary with 18 years of satisfactory service. He was then transferred to the Non-Affiliated Reserve Section in Reserve Sanctuary, on 18 May 2010, as required by Air Force Instruction 36-2115, Assignments within the Reserve Components, where he was offered the opportunity to earn points for 20 years of satisfactory service towards retirement. On 22 May 2012, a letter was mailed to the applicant notifying him that he had not completed 20 years of satisfactory service and he would be discharged on 17 May 2013 upon reaching his MSD. DPTT indicates their office shows no record that the applicant ever inquired about information on enrolling Extension Course Institute programs for points or asked about other point gaining activities for retirement eligibility. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge appears to be based solely on non- selection for promotion. Based on the information provided, they recommend the applicant’s case be sent to a medical consultant for determination as to whether a medical discharge is warranted. The complete DPTT evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (USC), only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically renders a member unfit for continued active service and were the case for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. In the case under review, it could not be established that the applicant was unable to reasonably perform his military duties due to one or more medical conditions during his military service, as would be demonstrated through medical narratives and summaries of his care and the imposition of duty restrictions of a sufficient level of restriction that warranted processing through the military DES under AFI 36-3212. Although the applicant reportedly has been awarded a total (100%) disability rating for one or more service connected medical conditions by the DVA, no evidence is presented to show either of these interfered with his military service to the extent or duration that warranted an alternative medical release from military service. Operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, USC) with a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred following the discharge of a service member, without regard to, and dependent of, its demonstrated or proven impact upon the service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or narrative reason for separation. This is the reason an individual can be found fit for release from military service, or may be released for one reason and yet, sometime thereafter, receive compensation ratings from the DVA for one or more service-connected medical conditions that were proven militarily unfitting at the time of release from service. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service-connected medical condition may vary (improve or worsen) over the lifetime of the veteran. It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of record. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. ARPC/SG recommends denial. SG states that review of their database shows they do not have any records of the applicant having a duty-related condition that would have resulted in the possibility of him being given a medical retirement. In addition, the applicant does not submit any medical documentation to support his claim. The complete SG evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the evaluations by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant were forwarded to the applicant on 10 June 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has received no reply. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 an error or an injustice. 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. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01580 in Executive Session on 16 January 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Vice Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01580: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPTT, dated 7 May 13, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 May 13. Exhibit E. Letter, AFRC/SG, dated 7 Jun 13. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 13. 3 4 5