RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04897 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed from “Pregnancy or Childbirth” to “Medical Retirement.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was discharged because of her pregnancy; however her service connected disabilities were not evaluated. Immediately after she was discharged she received a 30 percent service connected disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 19 Jan 2007, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 4 Apr 2008, she applied for a separation due to her pregnancy. On 31 Jul 2008, she was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. Her narrative reason for separation was “Pregnancy or Childbirth.” She served 1 year, 6 months and 22 days of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant was approved for a pregnancy discharge per her request and was not discharged because of medical pregnancy reasons. The basis for her requested action has no merit. She submitted the request to gain entitlement to DVA benefits for which she is not entitled based on her limited time on active duty. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states it is clearly documented that the applicant was approved for a pregnancy discharge per her request and was in no way discharged due to medical pregnancy reasons. There is no medical evidence to support the basis of her request. The foundation for her requested action has no merit and is submitted to gain additional DVA entitlements, per her statements. Addressing her implicit desire for a medical separation/retirement, the military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offers compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. In the case under review there is no medical documentation, to support a migraine headache history nor pregnancy related medical conditions that should have been the cause for a medical separation or retirement. On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred, without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member's retainability, fitness to serve, or narrative reason for release from military service. With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for any conditions with a nexus with military service. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from active military service for one reason and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for a medical condition service-connected, but which was not militarily unfitting during the period of active service. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 15 Jan 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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- 2011-04897 in Executive Session on 26 Feb 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2011-04897: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 5 Mar 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 14 Jun 2012, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 Dec 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 15 Jan 2013.