RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02074

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her honorable discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While serving as an Air Reserve Technician (ART), she underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for service-connected conditions and was working diligently for healing solutions in order to maintain her career.  However, due to her health concerns and deaths in her family, she accepted a civilian position seven months before her enlistment expired.  At the time it was very important for her to rejoin her husband during his time of grief.  

Subsequently, she received an 80 percent disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and if her case was handled differently, she would have been medically retired.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 Jul 02, according to the applicant’s DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, she enlisted in the Air Force Reserve (USAFR).

According to Reserve Order CA-005361, on 10 Mar 14, the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAFR.

According to the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), the applicant completed 13 years of satisfactory Federal service towards retirement.

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of a letter from the DVA, dated 14 May 15; a printout from the DVA webpage outlining her disabilities, VA Form 3288, Request For and Consent to Release of Information From Individual’s Records, dated 14 May 15; Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 10 Mar 14; and her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicating her active duty time in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and F.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFDD recommends denial indicating the applicant did not provide any documents to indicate she was referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for potentially unfitting conditions prior to her voluntary release from the USAFR.  

The Department of Defense (DoD) and the DVA disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws.  Under Title 10, United States Code (USC), Chapter 61, 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.

Should the applicant provide documents indicating she was referred for an MEB and the associated medical documentation available at the time of her voluntary separation, DPFDD will reconsider her request.  However, submission of the requested documents does not constitute approval.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFDD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states in 2003, she deployed in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, and incurred a back injury.  She received other injuries that culminated over time and eventually worsened during her tour in Alaska.  Her asthma and back condition were the basis of an MEB; however, during that time sequestration was in full swing and the medical team was minimally manned.  She was unable to find a vacant position and was unable to pass her fitness assessment despite having a waiver due to swelling from her medication.  As a result, the option to reenlist was removed and her only other option was the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) in order to out-process.

She received a 70 percent disability rating from the DVA that was later upgraded to 80 percent and was informed that she could not be retained with a disability rating over 30 percent.  

Her situation should have been handled differently resulting in a disability retirement.  

In further support of her request, the applicant provides copies of AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status and various other documents associated with her request.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice to warrant the desired change.  The medical evidence of care provided by the applicant’s civilian health care providers and the disability compensation she has received from the DVA is noted.  However, the applicant has provided no service medical or administrative documents to indicate there has been a failure to timely act upon any relevant medical information by the military department in such a manner so as to errantly or unjustly deprive the applicant of a MEB.

Operating under Title 10, USC, the military department only offers compensation for the condition(s) that impair the performance of duties of office, grade, rank, and rating.  An individual is processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) for compensable In Line of Duty conditions found to be unfitting by a Physical Evaluation and which cause career termination.  There is no evidence that a MEB or new Deployment Availability Working Group (DAWG) review was initiated specifically for the applicant’s neuromusculoskeletal conditions of the spine or a military narrative summary disclosing the medical conditions believed to have been disqualifying or interfering with worldwide qualification.  If a disqualifying medical condition was found not In Line of Duty, the applicant would have been vulnerable, instead, for medical disqualification and separation with the option to transfer to the Reserve Retired Section.

Finally, although it may appear counterintuitive to deny the applicant a retroactive medical separation or retirement, noting service-connection and compensation ratings assigned to her by the DVA and the evidence from her civilian providers, the Board is reminded, that operating under Title 38, USC, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical conditions determined service-incurred without regard to its proven or demonstrated impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for release from service, passage of time since release from service, nor whether or not a condition was found In Line of Duty by the military department.

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 Feb 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G).  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, to include her response to the Air Force OPR evaluation, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his 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. 

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-2015-02074 in Executive Session on 22 Mar 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				  , Panel Chair
				    , Member
				    , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02074 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 May 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 10 Jun 15.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Nov 15.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Nov 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 18 Feb 16.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Feb 16.