RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01380 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge with severance pay (DWSP) be changed to a medical retirement. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His is currently rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) with a compensable disability rating of 70 percent. He should have been rated higher than 20 percent when he was disability separated from the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR). In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a copy of his DVA Decisional documents and a statement through his DVA representative. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on the available record, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the USAFR, effective 21 Jul 99. The applicant was honorably discharged, on 15 Dec 01, with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent, with severance pay. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical Consultant states more likely than not the applicant would have been found unfit for military service only for his left knee ailment with no greater than the 10 percent rating he has received via DVA adjudication. The record shows his left knee was the singular condition that resulted in his extended (greater than one year) profile restrictions and worldwide disqualification. Therefore, the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. The applicant asks for a medical retirement. The preponderance of the applicant's service medical evidence reflects that a chronic left knee ailment was the principle condition that resulted in his disqualification for military service. Although the applicant's left knee condition reportedly resulted from a service incurred injury while playing basketball in 1990, it appears that he may have also been administratively released from military service, under the provision of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for the ANG and USAFR Members, possibly for failure to timely submit required medical documentation and signed forms regarding his Medical Evaluation Board/Physical Evaluation Board (MEB/PEB) election. Collectively acknowledging that the DVA granted the applicant service connection for his left knee ailment and the overwhelming service medical evidence of an initial injury in 1990, with recurrent exacerbations of knee pain and longstanding profile restrictions over the remaining course of his military service, the Medical Consultant opines this condition should have, otherwise, rendered the applicant eligible for processing through the Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES). Nevertheless, the AFRC/SGP officials also appear to have acted within established regulatory parameters by administratively releasing the applicant from military service. Addressing the applicant's desire for a medical retirement, even if processed through the military DES, the Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant's disability rating for his left knee would not have reached [and did not reach] the minimum 30 percent threshold that would render him retirement eligible. Although the applicant successfully challenged the initial VA rating decision of zero percent for his left knee, which was increased to 10 percent, the medical evidence (and the absence of true knee joint instability ratable under an alternative rating code) did not support a rating beyond 10 percent. Additionally, although the applicant has ultimately been successful in gaining service connection and disability ratings for other medical conditions, some which were initially denied service connection, the service evidence does not show any of these to have interfered with his ability to perform military service to the extent or duration that they, too, should have been included as a basis for release from military service. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his original contentions that he should have been medically retired from military service from an injury to his left knee which subsequently resulted in his disability separation, with severance pay. In addition, he notes what appear to be several discrepancies in the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation. He indicates that he was not properly briefed; or out-processed from his unit of assignment; and he did not receive proper documentation of his medical separation in accordance with the applicable laws and policies. He was not notified of his separation and retirement options and believes the rating decision could not be right, since he was eventually rated by the DVA at 70 percent for service-connected injuries. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical Consultant and we did not find the evidence provided sufficient to overcome his assessment of the case. Therefore, we agree with the Medical Consultant’s recommendation and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. The applicant asserts there were several discrepancies in the processing of his separation; however, we agree with the BCMR Medical Consultant that based on the governing directives in effect at the time of the applicant’s separation, it appears that Air Force officials acted within established regulatory parameters in administratively releasing the applicant from military service. In view of the above and 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 issue(s) 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-2011-01380 in Executive Session on 13 December 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, Dated 17 Oct 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Nov 11, w/atchs.