RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02024 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed to show she was separated due a service connected disability rather than a disability that existed prior to service (EPTS). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her reason for discharge should reflect her medical conditions were incurred while she was on active duty based on the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) establishing a service connection for her reactive airway disease, major depressive disorder, and gastric ulcer. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and a DVA Decision memorandum. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 19 Oct 00, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the Regular Air Force. While on active duty, the applicant was seen and treated for a variety of medical conditions to include pelvic pain and depression. She underwent an extensive medical work-up for the pain which resulted with an unclear etiology for the pain. On 10 Jan 02, the applicant underwent a mental health evaluation and reported a long history of depressed mood and suicidal ideations and attempts. On 25 Jan 02, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for chronic abdominal pain and major depressive disorder. The MEB referred the applicant’s case to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 15 Feb 02, IPEB reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended discharge under other than Chapter 61, 10 USC, noting the applicant’s medical condition existed prior to service (EPTS) and had not been permanently aggravated by military service. On 25 Feb 02, the applicant disagreed with the findings and recommendations and requested a hearing before the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB). On 29 Mar 02, the FPEB reviewed the applicant’s case and concurred with findings and recommendations of the IPEB. On 29 Mar 02, the applicant disagreed with the findings and recommendations of the FPEB and appealed to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a disability retirement. On 29 May 02, SAFPC reviewed the applicant’s case, to include her rebuttal, the testimony and evidence before the IPEB and FPEB, and directed the applicant be discharged under other than Chapter 61, 10 USC. SAFPC confirmed the finding not in the line of duty; EPTS without service aggravation. On 9 Aug 02, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Disability, Existed Prior to Service, PEB.” She was credited with 1 year, 9 months, and 21 days of total active service. According to documents provided by the applicant, she has sought medical care through the DVA and has been awarded service connection for her reactive airway disease, major depressive disorder and gastric ulcer with a 60 percent combined disability rating, effective 10 Aug 02. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice during the disability process. The applicant contends her medical conditions were incurred while on active duty and should be considered “in line of duty” based on the service connection decision by the DVA. The applicant was referred to the IPEB and was found unfit and recommended for discharge. The applicant appealed to the FPEB. The FPEB concurred with the IPEB and noted the applicant suffered significant depressive episodes prior to military service, to include suicidal ideations. The FPEB found the applicant had received sufficient medical care and that the diagnosis of major depression was correct, existed prior to service, and had not been aggravated by military service. The applicant then appealed to SAFPC who concurred with the findings of the PEBs and confirmed a finding of not in line of duty. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD 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 21 Jun 13 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 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we find no errors in the applicant’s discharge processing. We further find the applicant’s medical condition was thoroughly reviewed in accordance with the applicable instructions and policy and appropriately determined to have existed prior to her service (EPTS) and was therefore not compensable. As a result, she was administratively separated for her EPTS condition. Furthermore, the Air Force and the DVA are separate federal agencies and operate under different laws and policies. The Air Force is tasked to maintain a fit and vital force and assesses a service member's disability with respect to its impact of the member’s fitness for duty and, if incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, compensates the member based on the degree of impairment that cut-short their military career. In this case, however, because the applicant’s condition was not incurred or aggravated in the LOD, she was not eligible for disability compensation from the military disability evaluation system (DES). The DVA, however, awards ratings for any and all conditions that they determine to be service-connected conditions, irrespective of findings of the military DES, to the degree they interfere with future employability and without consideration of fitness for military duty. When combined these two systems provide a continuum of coverage of our veterans. For these reasons, it is not uncommon for the military department and the DVA to issue different ratings. Therefore, after a careful review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, and 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 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-2013-02024 in Executive Session on 4 Feb 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 30 May 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 13. Panel Chair