RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04502 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His medical separation be changed to a medical retirement. 2. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; Block 14, Military Education, be amended to show “Basic Military Training (BMT) Aug 2000.” (Administratively Corrected) ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his discharge, he received a 10 percent disability rating. Immediately thereafter the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated him at 90 percent. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service; and DVA rating decision. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 29 Oct 02, the applicant entered active duty service. On 28 Mar 13, he was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Disability, Severance Pay, Noncombat (Enhanced).” He served 10 years and 5 months on active duty. In a letter dated 19 Dec 13, AFPC/DPSIT informed the applicant that they validated the requested change to his BMT completion date and the correction will be made to his DD Form 214. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have his Discharge With Severance Pay (DWSP) changed to a permanent retirement based on the 90 percent combined disability rating he received from the DVA. On 21 Aug 12, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) reviewed his case for lumbago, status post artificial disc surgery without residuals. In Accordance With (IAW) the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) effective Nov 07, the code sheet from the DVA was used in applying the disability rating. The DVA proposed a 10 percent rating for the applicant’s lumbago. Therefore, the IPEB recommended DWSP with a disability rating of 10 percent. On 30 Aug 12, he concurred with the recommended findings. The applicant did not use his two appeal rights to have his case reviewed by the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) or by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council. As background, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the DVA disability evaluations systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, U.S.C. 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, the Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member’s condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of the condition at the time. It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the military service, must by law, leave off. Under Title 38, U.S.C. 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 complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 20 Jun 14, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After carefully reviewing this application, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered from an error or injustice. Therefore, aside from the administrative correction to his DD Form 214 to change his BMT completion date, we find no basis to recommend granting any of 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-2013-04502 in Executive Session on 7 Aug 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 19 Dec 13. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 11 Jan 14 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 14. Panel Chair