RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01614 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His medical discharge is changed to medical retirement. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is now eligible for medical retirement because his service connected disability rating has been increased by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA). His original disability rating of 10% was raised to 30%. Added to the 10% he received for hearing loss, his new disability rating should be 40%. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 28 Dec 04, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 10 Sep 13, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found him unfit to continue military service due to Deafness Right Ear, S/P Excision Acoustic Neuroma (Schwannoma), recommending he be Discharged With Severance Pay (DWSP) with a combined compensable disability rating of 10%. On 25 Sep 13, the applicant non-concurred with the IPEB requested a formal hearing. On 22 Oct 13, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) found the applicant unfit to continue military service due to S/P Excision Acoustic Neuroma (Schwannoma) with Residuals of Deafness Right Ear and Vestibular Disorder, recommending he be DWSP with a combined compensable disability rating of 10%. On 23 Oct 13, the applicant agreed with the findings and recommendation of the FPEB and requested a one-time reconsideration under the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (DES). On 17 Jan 14, the DVA provided him a disability determination under the DES program proposing a combined compensable disability rating of 30%. On 28 Jan 14, the FPEB found he had right ear hearing loss, Peripheral Vestibular Disorder (PVD), and left ear hearing loss (not DVA service connected), for a combined compensable disability rating was 20%. On 28 May 14, the applicant received an honorable discharge with narrative reason for separation as disability, severance pay, non-combat (enhanced). He was credited with 9 years, 5 months, and 1 day of active service. 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 indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Documents submitted by the applicant regarding his DVA rating for PVD reflects the increase was effective 10 months following his release from active duty. The Department of Defense and the DVA disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, U.S.C., Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a member’s condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating. It must be noted the Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member’s condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the AF must, by law, leave off. Under Title 38, the DVA may reevaluate a member’s medical condition based on changes in the severity of a condition. This often results in increased ratings. An increase in a DVA assigned rating after a service member has been separated or retired does not change the final disposition of the disability case. The recommendation for discharge or retirement is based on the rating assigned by the DVA at the time the service member was being processed through the DES and cannot be changed due to fluctuations in the service member’s condition following separation or retirement. 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 14 Sep 15 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 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, including attachments, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01614 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 1 Jul 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 15.