RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01961 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her disability rating be raised from 10 percent to 40 percent, and she receive a medical retirement. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her separation was unjust because she was only rated with a 10 percent disability rating vice the 40 percent rating merited by her various unfitting conditions. Her medical condition merits not less than 40 percent for the following conditions: Left anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) Repair (10 Percent); Moderate Neuritis, Left Deep Peroneal Nerve (20 Percent); and, Moderate Neuritis, Left Superficial Peroneal Nerve (20 Percent). The VA rated her with a 90 percent disability rating, to include a 70 percent disability for a mood disorder the Air Force did not find unfitting. The “benefit of the doubt” doctrine has been an essential part of disability adjudication for many years, and should be applied in this case. The legal basis for such a decision is established by the Department of Defense (DoD) Policy Memo, dated 14 Oct 08, that implemented the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, which states: “The Secretaries of the Military Departments may not deviate from the schedule of any interpretation of the schedule, including any applicable interpretation of the VASRD by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.” The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Air National Guard on 23 Aug 06. On 25 May 10, a medical evaluation Board (MEB) convened to consider the applicant’s left knee pain which resulted from a ligament sprain she suffered while attending Basic Military Training (BMT) on 23 Feb 07, was determined to be in the line of duty, and resulted in reconstruction surgery in 2008 and arthroscopy in 2009. The MEB referred the case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 30 Aug 10, the IPEB found the applicant unfit for further military service due to her left knee pain post ACL repair, and recommended her discharge with severance pay and a disability rating of 10 percent in accordance with the DoD guidance for applying the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) schedule. On 13 Sep 10, the applicant disagreed with the findings and recommendation of the IPEB, and requested a formal PEB (FPEB). On 15 Sep 11, the FPEB reviewed the applicant’s medical records and concurred with the IPEB that a 10 percent disability rating was appropriate for her left knee pain post ACL repair, and did not concur with her request for an additional 20 percent for Neuritis, Common Peroneal Nerve. The FPEB determined her only unfitting condition was her left knee pain. The applicant disagreed with the findings and recommendation of the FPEB, and requested the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAF/PC) review the case and make a final decision. On 28 Feb 12, SAF/PC, on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, directed the applicant be discharged and receive severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent. SAF/PC reviewed her entire case history, to include her contention that her cumulative medical issues qualified her for permanent retirement with a disability rating of 40 percent, but concurred with the disposition recommended by the MEB, IPEB, and FPEB. Further, SAF/PC encouraged the applicant to use the resources of DVA, noting that while the Military Disability Evaluation System (DES) is responsive for maintaining a fit and vital fighting force, compensation can only be offered for those medical conditions that cut short a service member’s career, and then only to the degree of severity present at the final disposition. However, the DVA, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, United States Code), is empowered to periodically re-evaluate veterans for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating should her degree of impairment very over time. On 28 May 12, the applicant was issued a NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, with a reason of “Discharge Disability, Severance Pay, Non-Combat,” and was credited with five years nine months, and six days of service. According to the documentation provided by the applicant, on 1 Apr 15, the DVA issued the applicant a combined overall disability rating of 90 percent, effective 25 May 12. The 90 percent combined rated included individual ratings of: 70 percent for depressive disorder; 10 percent for left knee status post ACL repair; 20 percent for reflux sympathetic dystrophy involving the left musculocutaneous nerve; 20 percent for reflux sympathetic dystrophy involving the right musculocutaneous nerve; 20 percent for reflux sympathetic dystrophy involving the left anterior tibial nerve; and, 20 percent for reflux sympathetic dystrophy involving the right anterior tibial nerve. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFDD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The 10 percent disability rating for her single unfitting condition (left knee pain status post ACL repair) was assigned at the IPEB and upheld throughout all appeals, to include the final decision rendered by SAFPC. The FPEB and SAFPC were aware of the applicant’s desire to receive a rating of 20 percent for neuralgia-common peroneal nerve and determined it was not unfitting at that time. Regarding her request for a 10 percent rating for mood disorder, that condition was not included on the AF Form 618 (Medical Board Report) as potentially unfitting and therefore not considered at the time of the DES processing. The applicant was afforded the opportunity to request an impartial review of her MEB and chose not to, thereby concurring the MEB adequately addressed her condition at that time. In addition, the rating decision rendered by the DVA almost 5 years later was also 10% for her left knee pain status post ACL repair. The DES processed her case in accordance with guidance in effect at the time her case file was introduced for consideration (AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation, dated 2 Feb 06, and DODI 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, dated 14 Nov 96 w/Change 1, dated 10 Jul 06). The applicant did not present any documentation supporting her contention of an error on injustice during the processing of her case. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFDD 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 12 Nov 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 timely filed. 3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 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 AFPC/DPFDD and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2015-01961 in Executive Session on 24 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 10 Jun 15 Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Nov 15. 4