RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02196 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her discharge be changed to a medical retirement. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was not medically retired after 15 years of service. Instead, her term of service was allowed to expire. She was not aware of the impact of her term expiring versus being medically disqualified. As a Reserve First Sergeant, she was never briefed on the significance of the difference in the processes or the impact on her future. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, documentation from her master personnel file and medical records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: A review of the applicant’s service records indicate she enlisted in 1973. She was transferred to the Non-obligated Nonparticipating Ready Reserve in December 1987 and honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserves in December 1991. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/SG recommends denial. The medical documentation provided reveals the applicant suffered from several medical conditions. At issue is whether those conditions, during her periods of service, would have been disqualifying for military service. The applicant’s physical exams reveal profiles with “1’s” across the board, indicating no disqualifying or duty limiting conditions. At that time, the profile system was used to indicate the ability to work and perform as a reservist. A “4” in the profile box was duty limiting. The only “4” seen in the documents was for pregnancy, which restricts the member from activities and exposures risky to the fetus and mother. It is not apparent that she would have been medically disqualified at all based on her diagnosis. If presented today with her current complaints, it is highly unlikely she would have been medically disqualified to serve in her Air Force Specialty Code or perform her military duties. In addition, as the First Sergeant, she would have been responsible for advising members on career decisions and certainly would have been able to refer them to appropriate resources. Her performance reports show her to be firewall 5’s indicating no lapse in performance. In sum, she appeared fully capable to perform duties, and very well until she elected to leave reserve service. The complete AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant empathizes with the applicant’s contentions, noting she effectively performed her military duties, despite periodic interruptions due to some medical conditions. However, none of these conditions resulted in duty restrictions of any significant duration or level of restriction to bring her overall ability to serve into question, noting her contention the system allowed her to slip through the process. The military Disability Evaluation System (DES) established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, Unite States Code, only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically render a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only to the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. Service members are considered unfit when the evidence establishes that a member, due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, to include duties during a remaining period of Reserve obligation. Based on the supplied evidence, it could not be established that the applicant was unable to reasonably perform her duties as the unit’s First Sergeant due to one or more of her medical conditions. Moreover, under paragraph E3.P3.3.3, Adequate Performance Until Referral, if the evidence establishes the member was referred for physical evaluation, the member may be considered fit for duty even though the medical evidence indicates questionable physical ability to continue to perform duty. Again, based on the supplied evidence, the Medical Consultant found no medical condition that established, or should have, a cause and effect relationship with the applicant’s termination of service, or as an alternative, reason for her release from military service. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service- incurred, without regard to and independent of, its demonstrated or proven impact upon servicemembers retainability. With this in mind, Title 38 U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow compensation ratings for conditions that were not considered unfitting during military service or at the time of separation. Therefore, members can be found fit for release from military service for one reason and sometime thereafter, receive compensation ratings from the DVA for one or more medical conditions that are determined service-connected. The Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s untimely request to supplant her discharge with a medical retirement. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She disagrees with the recommendation for the following reasons: the 15-year law was not in effect when her cumulative health issues were extremely limiting. Secondly, medical conditions that were not in the line of duty were not entered into their military medical records. Next, it was the cumulative medical conditions that left her unable to perform her duties. Reserve personnel were not well informed as to the process of handling medically limiting conditions versus line of duty profiling. She was denied the opportunity to return to the Reserves because of these medical conditions. Therefore, she does not agree these medical conditions would not have qualified her for a medical profile. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ 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 are not persuaded by the evidence submitted in this appeal that a change in the record is warranted. While the applicant contends it was her cumulative medical conditions that left her unable to perform her duties, the evidence of record does not support the applicant was unfit to perform her duty as a First Sergeant. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFRC/SG and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence submitted to support the applicant should have been processed for a medical retirement. 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-2013-02196 in Executive Session on 28 January 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 1 May 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/SG, dtd 15 Jul 13. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 26 Aug 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dtd 26 Aug 13. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dtd 19 Sep 13, w/atchs.