RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00392 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His military personnel records be corrected to reflect that he was permanently retired for physical disability, with a combined compensable disability percentage of 40 percent, instead of being discharged for physical disability with a combined compensable disability rating of 10 percent. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He fell from a ladder in July 2009 and his chances of a successful recovery were hampered by the incompetence of the treating civilian hospital. Despite multiple requests for a computed tomography (CT) scan or a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, none was provided until six days after the occurrence of his injury. It was then discovered that he had a fractured off 5 transverse processes and developed a fissure in vertebra TH12. He made every effort to recover from his injuries to preserve his Air Force career and lifelong dream of accumulating over 325 hours as an Air Weapons Officer on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), while in continuous pain from an incomplete recovery. His disability rating received from the Department of Defense (DoD) and that which was determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) shows a vast disparity. The DVA determination was made nine months subsequent to his DoD disability rating for the same ratable condition; however, it increased despite using the same metrics. To this day, his unhealed transverse processes continue to cause him pain on a daily basis. Therefore, his disability rating should be changed to the determination made by the DVA, affording him the same privileges of someone that is medically retired. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 31 October 2007. On 24 May 2011, an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, was initiated that placed duty and mobility restrictions upon the applicant, which precluded him from worldwide duty due to a medical defect/condition that required a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). On 3 August 2011, an Optional Form 275, Medical Record Report, was initiated due to the applicant’s chief complaint of low back pain. The onset began in July 2009 when he fell from a ladder and since then he has been in chronic pain. It was determined that the applicant would have a difficult time deploying if there was any degree of physical activity, but he could do office work. To stay in the Air Force, the applicant would need to cross train from a flying position. Since the applicant could not perform flight duties due to his back condition, his commander identified him for a MEB. On 4 August 2011, the applicant acknowledged that he was briefed on the Disability Evaluation System (DES) process, he could request an Air Force physician or other appropriate health care professional (not involved in his MEB process) to offer an impartial review of the medical evidence, and his responsibility to file a disability claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), if so desired. On 25 August 2011, a MEB convened to consider the applicant for continued active duty. The applicant was diagnosed with lumbago with the approximate date of origin on 15 July 2009. The MEB recommended the applicant be referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 11 October 2011, an IPEB was convened which found the applicant unfit for duty due to his chronic low back pain from a fractured lumbar vertebrae that had not fused/healed properly. The IPEB recommended he be discharged with entitlement to severance pay and a compensable disability rating of 10 percent. On 18 October 2011, the applicant did not agree with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB hearing and requested a formal hearing of his case. On 13 December 2011, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) upheld the decision of the IPEB for the recommended discharge with severance pay and a compensable disability rating of 10 percent. The applicant disagreed with the decision of the FPEB recommendation and requested his case be referred to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), for review and final decision. On 26 December 2011, the applicant informed SAFPC of the reasoning why he refuted the FPEB’s determination. Specifically, the FPEB’s sole metric in determining his level of impairment, and resulting compensation, was a measure of forward flexibility and it does not accurately reflect the severity of his condition. To date, military medicine has failed to offer him any acceptable solutions for his ongoing pain. On 12 January 2012, AFPC/DPSDD notified SAFPC of the applicant’s request to be returned to duty and forwarded his PEB proceedings for review and action. On 24 April 2012, SAFPC notified ARPC/DPSDD that the Board unanimously concurred with the disposition recommended by the previous boards to discharge the member with a disability rating of 10 percent. The Board noted that the applicant, by his own testimony to the FPEB, and by history noted in his medical record, continues to have unresolved pain for which he routinely takes medications, including muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, and periodically, opiate agonists. He has had various procedures to improve his symptoms, none of which have provided complete or lasting relief. There is no indication in his medical record that any additional procedures, surgical or otherwise, would be expected to resolve or significantly improve, his condition. The applicant’s disability rating of ten percent was given on the basis of the Range of Motion (ROM) testing obtained in June 2011, in preparation of his MEB. Specifically, under the circumstance for the performance of this test and in accordance with the standards outlined in the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), it was mandated that the applicant receive a disability rating of ten percent. The applicant was encouraged to utilize the resources of the DVA to the extent that he may be entitled. The DVA is the agency chartered by Congress to provide assistance to all eligible veterans. The Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES) is responsible for maintaining a fit and vital fighting force. While the MDES considers all of the service member’s medical conditions, compensation can only be offered for those medical conditions that cut short a service member’s career, and then only to the degree of severity present at the time of final disposition. However, under Title 38, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the severity of a condition. Therefore, officials with the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) determined the applicant was physically unfit for continued military service and directed he be discharged for physical disability with entitlement to severance pay. On 28 September 2012, the applicant was honorably discharged, with a narrative reason for separation of “Disability, severance Pay, Non-Combat (Enhanced) and was issued an SPD code of “JEB”. He was credited with 4 years, 10 months, and 28 days of total active service. On 19 December 2013, the applicant was assigned a disability rating of 40 percent for his lumbar spine transverse process fractures, effective 10 July 2013. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time of separation. The Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) was introduced in 2007 and implemented in stages throughout the contiguous United States (CONUS) with full Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in September 2010. However, the overseas evaluation plan for IDES implementation was not fully realized until October 2011. Prior to full IOC, disability cases were processed under what is now referred to as the Legacy Disability Evaluation System (LDES). Under LDES, the military services were charged with determining a member’s disability rating utilizing the VASRD. In making that determination, they were required to take into account all medical conditions, whether individually or collectively, that rendered the member unfit to perform the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank or rating. This determination was based on the medical documents provided as a part of the MEB. In accordance with Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM-11-015), Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES), all newly initiated, duty-related physical disability cases from the Department of the Army, Air Force, and Navy at operating IDES sites will be processed in accordance with this DTM and follow the process described in this DTM unless the military department concerned approves the exclusion of the service member due to special circumstances. Service members whose cases were initiated under the LDES process will not enter the IDES. Based on this guidance, a change of the rating applied to the applicant’s unfitting condition at the time of the IPEB is not warranted and does not meet the intent of the DTM. Therefore, based on the evidence presented at the time of the applicant’s processing through the DES, it was determined that an assignment of 10 percent disability was the appropriate rating at that point in time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/JA recommends denial. The applicant’s disability evaluation processing including his appeal for SAFPC review appears to have been conducted appropriately and without error or injustice. In 2013, the DVA awarded the applicant a 40 percent disability rating under its disability evaluation system. The applicant has a common misunderstanding as it relates to the DVA disability rating. While the DoD and DVA share the VASRD guidelines, the two are separate systems with different purposes. The VA compensates for all conditions that are service connected, even if something is not a career-ending injury. The military, though, only compensates for the conditions that make an airman unfit to perform military duties and are determined to be incurred in the line of duty. Another key distinction is that the military rating is a “snap shot” of the member’s condition as they leave the service. The VA system, on the other hand, can increase a disability rating as a service-connected condition worsens. These differences can frequently result in different disability ratings. The two systems are distinct, and both appear to have worked properly for their different purposes in the applicant’s case. A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 16 July 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their 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. 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-2015-00392 in Executive Session on 20 August 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00392 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 January 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 11 February 2015. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 10 June 2015. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 July 2015.