RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01625 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her discharge be corrected to reflect medical retirement. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: An injustice was perpetrated on her. 24-hours before her expiration term of service (ETS); she was discharged from the Air Force instead of being retired. She alleges her doctors wanted her on medical hold and she was instructed to just go home and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) would take care of her. In late 2011 and early 2012, she was approaching her separation date. She had several medical conditions occurring at that time and thus requested an out-processing examination. She was on several extended profiles and could not deploy; however, strongly intended on an Air Force career. After she met with her doctor, it was suggested that she be medically extended as to meet a medical evaluation board to determine her fate in the Air Force. She was told not to worry about extended or reenlisting as she would be placed on medical hold until these issues were addressed. If they could be satisfactorily treated, she would be returned to duty and have more options at that time. Her doctor asked her if she agreed with this course of action, to which she did and they proceeded to medical board preparations. Her final paperwork states that she was not medically cleared to out-process and needed to be medically evaluated. She inquired to whether or not she should extend and was told “No” this was common place and the medical board wing would take care of her working arrangements. 24-hours before her ETS, she was notified by Wilford Hall Medical Center, that she was to proceed with out-processing and to follow-up with the DVA for treatment. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 Jul 96, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 6 Feb 12, the applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge, with and Separation Program Designator (SPD) of KBK (member initiated discharge allowed by established directive upon completion of required active service), and was credited with 15 years, 6 months, and 12 days 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: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial based upon the limited service evidence supplied, they opine the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change in record. No service treatment records or medical administrative personnel documentation is supplied, e.g., AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report and AF Form 422, to reflect the applicant was prohibited from performing certain activities of a sufficient level of restriction, e.g., “L4T profile,” or duration, e.g.,365 days or more, to indicate a justifiable medical reason for career termination. It should be first stated that a medical diagnosis does not automatically warrant or justify a disability separation or retirement. Under a since rescinded Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.32, Physical Disability Evaluation, Enclosure 3, Part 3, Standards For Determining Unfitness Due To Physical Disability Or Medical Disqualification, paragraph E3.P3.2.1, reads: “A Service member shall be considered unfit when the evidence establishes that the member, due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating (hereafter called duties) to include duties during a remaining period of Reserve obligation.” The aforementioned policy statement is retained under most current policy, DoDI 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System, August 5, 2014, and includes two additional criteria, which read: “A Service member may also be considered unfit when the evidence establishes that: (1) The Service member’s disability represents a decided medical risk to the health of the member or to the welfare or safety of other members; or (2) The Service member’s disability imposes unreasonable requirements on the military to maintain or protect the Service member.” Additionally, before DoDI 1332.38 was rescinded, the following additional policy extract, entitled Adequate Performance Until, clarified why an individual may be discharged, without disability compensation, even though medical conditions are present, which reads: “If the evidence establishes that the Service member adequately performed his or her duties until the time the Service member was referred for physical evaluation, the member may be considered fit for duty even though medical evidence indicates questionable physical ability to continue to perform duty.” With respect to evidentiary standard for determining unfitness because of disability, under DoDI 1332.18, “The Secretary of the Military Department concerned must cite objective evidence in the record, as distinguished from personal opinion, speculation, or conjecture, to determine a Service member is unfit because of disability.” Additionally, “With the exception of presumption of fitness cases, the Secretary of the Military Department concerned will determine fitness or unfitness for military service on the basis of the preponderance of the objective evidence in the record.” In the case under review, although the applicant has likely been evaluated and treated for a number of medical conditions during her military service, presumably to include obstructive sleep apnea, allergic rhinitis, and asthma, no evidence is supplied to indicate her ailments were so severe as to interfere with her duties to the extent or duration that foreshortened her military career; albeit it considered nearing the time of her separation physical examination. Nevertheless, individuals with a disqualifying medical condition may also be retained on active military service with an Assignment Limitation Code, where the demonstrated performance capabilities, the needs of the Air Force, and level of stability of the condition may selectively take precedence for retention. Thus, the mere fact that the applicant was issued disability compensation by the Department of Veterans Affairs is not determinative of her individual’s fitness to serve or retainability. On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the Department of Veterans Affairs (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 separation. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from military service for one reason and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for one or more service- connected, but not militarily unfitting conditions. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service connected medical condition may vary (improve or worsen, affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the veteran. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 Nov 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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01625 in Executive Session on 2 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01625 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, SAF/MRBC, dated 29 Oct 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Nov 15.