RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01640 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her administrative discharge be changed to a medical discharge. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 2001 she had surgery for an injury she sustained to her neck in Jun 1999 while on active duty. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated her medical condition of “cervical” at 20 percent which was increased to 30 percent in 2003. In support of her request the applicant provides copies of her medical records, DVA Rating Decision, NGB Forms 348, Line of Duty Determination, and various other documents associated with her request. Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the 9 Apr 2003, DVA Rating decision provided by the applicant, a service connection for status post cervical fusion C5-6 with radiculopathy was granted with an evaluation of 20 percent effective 26 Nov 2002. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the office of the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant regrettably recommends denial. The applicant sustained an In Line of Duty (ILOD) injury in Jun 1999, while on active duty orders. Following her return to home station, she continued to experience neck and right upper extremity symptoms despite a trial of conservative measures throughout Calendar Year (CY) 2000 and a portion of CY 2001, ultimately requiring surgical treatment in Jun 2001. After a period of recovery she was symptom-free until Oct 2002 when she experienced an exacerbation of neck pain and upper extremity radicular symptoms. No military or civilian medical documentation is supplied for care during CY 2002 or at the time of her reported worsening condition. Addressing the applicant's eligibility for military disability compensation, all would agree that her initial injury of 1999 was ILOD. Any subsequent acute presentations of the same injury that later interfered with duty would ordinarily also be presumed to be ILOD, with exceptions. The applicant has not supplied evidence that an intervening event occurred [presumably in 2002], that caused her medical condition to progress and become disqualifying in 2003, and that she was in a duty status at the time of its occurrence. Thus, under a presumption of regularity, NGB/SG officials acted within their authority to administratively separate the applicant under AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members. Had the applicant been processed through the military Disability Evaluation System she would have been found unfit. However, any disability rating determinations would be based upon the supplied evidence which was present at or about the date of the applicant's discharge; to include consideration of the probative value of any rating decisions by the DVA within the 12 months following discharge. While the applicant states she is now rated at 30 percent, she again, has not supplied medical evidence to reflect whether this represented a duty-related worsening of her cervical spine condition [prior to discharge] or the inclusion of other conditions which were previously rated zero (“0”) percent by the DVA. The DVA rates all service connected medical conditions, without regard to proven or demonstrated impact on fitness or retainability; and may periodically adjust (decrease or increase) disability ratings, as the severity of a particular medical condition may vary (improve or worsen) over the lifetime of the veteran. Insufficient evidence is supplied to determine whether the acute worsening of the applicant’s condition, which then resulted in her disqualification in 2003, was actually the result of a duty- related event or occurred while in a duty. The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. NGB/SGPA recommends denial. SGPA states that there is no documentation to support service connected aggravation to the applicant’s condition. Eligibility for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) depends on service connected aggravation. The applicant was found unfit for worldwide military duties; therefore, NGB/SG acted on its authority to recommend discharge for members who were found not worldwide qualified due to non- duty related injuries. The complete SGPA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 24 Jun 2013, copies of the BCMR Medical Consultant advisory and the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ 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 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 this application in Executive Session on 30 Jan 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2013-00259: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Jun 2013 Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/SGPA, dated 17 Jun 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jun 2013 8 9