RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02195 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge be changed to a medical retirement and he receive Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force failed to diagnosis Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA). The delayed diagnosis resulted in him infecting at least 20 people. He was not processed for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) examination or a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) review. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) lists MRSA under emerging infectious diseases. There is no Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) rating code for MRSA. The closest analogous rating is DC6307-plague, which is rated at 100 percent. The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application. On 15 Apr 13, he filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requesting his case file and found the infectious disease specialist examination and the severity of the MRSA. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 22 Aug 01 and was honorably released from active duty on 21 Aug 05 with narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required Active Service.” According to a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision dated 8 Mar 13, he was rated at 70 percent for compensable service connected disability. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR IMA Medical Consultant recommends denial of the request for a medical retirement. There is no documentation of a positive MRSA culture or failure to respond to the prescribed treatment regime. In addition, no referrals for specialty consultation for complications beyond the expected course of treatment were noted during military service. Notwithstanding the findings documented by the DVA of a chronic MRSA condition, there is no documented evidence in the records provided of a chronic MRSA condition during the period of service. It is the Medical Consultant’s opinion that even if this condition was present during active military service, it did not have any adverse impact on the applicant’s ability to perform his assigned duties and therefore would not have any adverse impact on his ability to perform his assigned duties and therefore would not have represented a cause for service termination. This conclusion is supported by a review of his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) which indicate satisfactory to excellent performance ratings and no duty limiting profiles. In addition, an out processing medical assessment questionnaire (#15) completed by the applicant on 6 Jun 05 indicated “no” to the questions of whether any condition currently limited his ability to work in his primary military specialty or required geographic or assignment limitations. Hence, the medical reviewer concludes that there was no unfitting or duty limiting condition of such a degree at the time of separation from active duty service that would have represented a cause for service termination (MEB/PEB process). Addressing his implicit request for a medical separation/retirement, the military Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under 10 U.S.C., only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered the member unfit for continued military service and were the cause of career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. However, operating under a different set of laws, 38 U.S.C., the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition with an established nexus with military service, without regard to its proven or demonstrated impact upon a member’s retention potential, fitness to serve, or the narrative reason for release from military service. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Jan 15 for review and comment 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 to warrant correcting his record to reflect a medical retirement. 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 Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. Subsequently, the applicant’s request for CRDP is also denied since CRDP is an entitlement paid concurrently with military retirement pay. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2014-02195 in Executive Session on 17 Mar 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 May 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, 13 Jan 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jan 15.