RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00372
								INDEX CODE:  100.00
	XXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 AUG 06

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable under medical conditions, with entitlement to all back pay.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was the victim of malpractice by examining physicians.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has diagnosed him as having schizo-affective illness on his maternal side; therefore, due to malpractice on the part of a Veterans Affairs (VA) physician, he was misdiagnosed in 1975.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) has advised that applicant’s Master Personnel Records have not been located.  Therefore, the following information has been extracted from the copy of applicant’s service medical records provided by the DVA.

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 13 October 1972.  On 7 April 1973, he attempted suicide by ingesting aspirin.  He was diagnosed with situational adjustment problem and treated in group therapy on a regular basis until 1 November 1973.  On 24 May 1974, he underwent a separation medical examination and was found qualified for worldwide duty.  On 18 July 1974, he was administratively discharged for misconduct.

On 6 November 1975, DVA awarded him a compensable disability rating of 30% for anxiety neurosis.  On 14 November 1989, his compensable disability rating was increased to 100% for schizo-affective disorder, depressive type.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and states, in part, that there is no evidence applicant was suffering from active psychosis or schizophrenia at the time of his discharge that may have mitigated any misconduct or warranted referral for disability evaluation.  The separation medical examination completed at the time of his administrative discharge indicates he was examined by mental health providers and it was determined there was no mental condition that warranted disability evaluation or impaired his ability to know right from wrong and adhere to right.  In the year following his discharge, he was diagnosed with anxiety neurosis by the VA; however, he was not diagnosed with schizophrenia until over 12 years following his separation.  

The fact that applicant has been granted service connected disability from the DVA does not entitle him to Air Force disability compensation.  The Military Disability Evaluation System operates under Title 10 and only offers compensation for those conditions which specifically render a member unfit for continued active service and only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation.  The DVA, however, operates under Title 38 and offers compensation for any service connected condition without regard to whether it was unfitting for continued military service.  Further, the DVA may periodically re-evaluate veterans for the purpose of changing their disability rating based on varied degrees of impairment over time.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 April 2006, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However, 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 error or injustice.  Based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the applicant's discharge was proper and in compliance with appropriate directives.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider his request to upgrade his discharge.  Furthermore, applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to substantiate that he was unfit for continued military service at the time of his discharge.  Although applicant is currently receiving compensation from the DVA for schizo-affective disorder, depressive type, there is no evidence he suffered from this condition at the time of discharge.  To the contrary, a mental health evaluation completed prior to his discharge, determined that he had no mental condition that warranted disability evaluation.  In addition, he underwent a separation physical and was found medically qualified for worldwide duty. It appears the applicant believes the DVA's decision to award him a 100% disability rating for schizo-affective disorder, depressive type, 12 years after his discharge, substantiates that his condition was present and misdiagnosed by the Air Force at the time of his discharge.  However, we note that although the Air Force is required to rate disabilities in accordance with the DVA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, the DVA operates under a totally separate system with a different statutory basis.  In this respect, we note the DVA rates for any and all service connected conditions, to the degree they interfere with future employability, without consideration of fitness.  Whereas, the Air Force rates a member's disability at the time of separation.  In the applicant's case, at the time of his discharge there was no condition that rendered him unfit.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2005-00372 in Executive Session on 17 May 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
				XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
				XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 6 Apr 06.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Apr 06.

                                   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair