RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01951
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her disability rating be changed from 50 percent permanent retirement to 100 percent due to unemployability.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received a 50 percent disability rating from the Air Force. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated her at 100 
percent and she believes the Air Force should increase their percentage to 100 percent for her disability.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, she provides medical documentation.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 10 March 1986.

On 8 May 2007, a MEB convened and referred the applicant's case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) based on a 
diagnosis of major depressive disorder – recurrent - moderate.  On 27 July 2007, the IPEB found her unfit for further military 
service and recommended permanent retirement with a disability rating of 50 percent for major depressive disorder, social and 
industrial adaptability impairment: considerable.  The narrative summary noted the applicant reported two depressive episodes in 
her lifetime lasting about two weeks each.  The first occurred in 1992 at Shepard following a pair of miscarriages and in 
2005 after her return from Iraq.

The applicant agreed with the findings and recommended 
disposition of the IPEB.




On 7 August 2007, the SAFPC directed that the applicant be 
permanently retired under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1201.

Special Order ACD-01634 – dated 8 August 2007, reflects the 
applicant retired on 26 September 2007.  She served 21 years 
6 months and 16 days of active service for retirement.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial.  DPFD states the Department of 
Defense and DVA disability evaluation systems operate under 
separate laws.  Under Title 10, USC, Physical Evaluation Boards 
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.  Further, it must be noted the 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.  It is the charge of the DVA to 
pick up where the Air Force 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 applicant gave up her right to appeal for a formal hearing 
at the FPEB and to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel 
Council.  The applicant did not exercise either one of these 
appeal rights.

The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or 
injustice occurred during the disability process.

The DPFD complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 5 August 2013, a copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D).  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 
________________________________________________________________

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 injustice.  The 
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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 an 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-2013-01951 in Executive Session on 12 December 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 April 2013 2013, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 3 July 2013.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 August 2013.
2 3 4