RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04395 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receives a medical retirement based on his disabilities incurred while on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was injured while he was on active duty and should have been medically discharged or retired from the Air Force because of his disabilities. The applicant did not submit any additional documentation with his request, however, he included the location and file number of his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records on his application. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to documents extracted from the Air Force Automated Records Management System (ARMS), the applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who enlisted on 3 March 2009, was progressively promoted to the rank of Senior Airman (SrA) E- 4 with date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 3 July 2011, and was released from active duty on 2 March 2013, with an honorable characterization of service and a narrative reason for separation of “completion of required active service.” He was credited with 4 years of active duty service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. Based upon the supplied service medical evidence, the Medical Consultant found no medical condition that established a cause and effect relationship with the termination of the applicant's military service. Specifically, there are no AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Reports, or AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Reports that indicate the applicant was restricted in the performance of his military duties to the extent and/or duration that warranted referral for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and further processing via a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The applicant has also not supplied his performance reports for an independent assessment of his overall duty performance and to identify any interference with duty caused by a medical condition. 2. The applicant’s Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) documentation reflects service connection and award of a 20% disability rating for left upper extremity radiculopathy affecting the middle radicular group, with intervertebral disc syndrome, and a 10% disability rating for cervical degenerative disease and degenerative joint disease; both effective March 3, 2013. He also received service connection for an unrelated skin condition, but was rated at 0%. The rationale for the DVA decision included references to the applicant's DVA Examination and Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 16 April 2013, and service treatment records from 19 November 2008, through 16 October 2012, none of which have been provided for this review. 3. It should be stated that a medical diagnosis during military service does not automatically equal unfitness for duty nor automatically forms the basis for release from military service. Addressing the applicant's desire for a medical retirement, the military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offers compensation for and when a service incurred disease or injury specifically renders a member unfit for continued active service or causes career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the “snapshot” time of separation and not based on future occurrences. 4. On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the 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 a service member's fitness, retainability, narrative reason for release from military service, or the length of time transpired since the date of separation. With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for any condition with a nexus with military service. Thus, the fact that the DVA has awarded the applicant compensation ratings, is not justification for or proof that the applicant should have been medically retired. Based upon the limited Service evidence supplied, the Medical Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof that warrants the desired change of the record. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days, on 8 April 2014, (Exhibit D). To date, a response has not been received. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was 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 opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his 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 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 22 May 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04395 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 September 2013. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 April 2014 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 April 2014.