RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-00851

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her retired disability rating of 50 percent be corrected to reflect 100 percent for physical disability.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to the events of 11 Sep 01, she has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 06 Dec 06, per Special Order AW-090, the applicant was issued an Honorable Discharge from the New York Air National Guard, effective 25 Sep 06, and transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), effective 26 Sep 06.  On 31 Jan 12, per Special Order No. ACD-01130, the applicant was removed from the TDRL, effective 23 Sep 11, and retired for disability with a compensable percentage of 50 percent.  The disability evaluation systems of the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs (DVA) have different functions and operate under separate laws.  Under Chapter 61 of Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), the military services must determine if a member’s condition renders him or her unfit for continued military service.  To be unfitting, the condition must preclude the member from fulfilling his or her military duties.  If the Air Force finds an airman unfit, the law provides compensation due to the premature termination of that airman’s career.  As a result, Air Force disability ratings are a “snapshot” of the airman’s condition at the time of separation.  By contrast, the DVA picks up where the Air Force must, by law, leave off.  Under Title 38, U.S.C, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based on future employability or re-evaluate a condition based on changes in its severity after separation from service.  This often results in different ratings from the two agencies that are equally valid.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFDD recommends denying the application, indicating the rating was accurate for the snapshot in time.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFBCMR Psychological Advisor recommends denying the application, indicating there is no evidence to support granting the applicant’s request.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 29 Aug 18 for comment (Exhibit E), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.   After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DPFDD and the AFBMCR Psychological Advisor and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Furthermore, the Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  Moreover, the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-00851 in Executive Session on 18 Oct 18:

, Vice Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 07 Mar 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 13 Dec 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, MRB MH, dated 07 Aug 18
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 29 Aug 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.