RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04591 XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her administrative discharge be changed to a medical retirement. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She should have received a medical retirement for her service related disabilities. She was recently informed by a psychiatrist that she did meet the criteria for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The applicant believes that the Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider her untimely application because she recently became aware of this injustice while attending a program at the Veterans Hospital. She is 100 percent disabled and her injuries are service connected. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her DD form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation; Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision, medical records and various other documents related to her request. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 8 Sep 2001, the applicant entered active duty. On 25 Aug 2006, she was honorably discharged from the Air Force. Her narrative reason for separation is “Completion of Required Active Service.” She served 4 years, 11 months and 18 days of active service. On 14 Sep 2012, the DVA increased the applicant’s 50 percent service-connected disability rating for “Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with adjustment and depressed mood” to 100 percent, effective 16 November 2011. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. Although certain medical conditions carry potential disqualification for continued military service under AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards, the mere existence of a given diagnosis does not automatically warrant a medical separation from military service. Thus, while the applicant has received compensation ratings from the DVA, the military Disability Evaluation System, operating under Title 10, United States Code (USC), can by law only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. It could not be established that the applicant was unable to reasonably perform her military duties due to one or more medical conditions during her military service or at the time of release from active duty orders. Therefore, while the applicant's case file shows evidence she received evaluations and treatment for PTSD, a knee ailment, migraine headaches, hearing loss, and tinnitus, other than her placement in the Hearing Conservation Program, there were no profile restrictions imposed that rendered her non-worldwide qualified. Thus, based upon the supplied service medical evidence, the Medical Consultant found no medical condition that established, [or should have], a cause and effect relationship between any of her medical conditions and the termination of service. On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, USC), with a different purpose, the 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 release from military service. With this in mind, the DVA compensation system was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for any medical condition with a nexus with military service. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from active military service and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for one or more medical conditions found service-connected, but which were not proven militarily unfitting during the period of active service. 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) as shown in the increased rating for the applicant's PTSD, affecting future employability over the lifetime of the veteran. Thus, the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 8 May 2014, a copy of the BCMR Medical evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). 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 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 BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, 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 that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 BC-2013- 04591 in Executive Session on 7 August 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2013- 04591 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 September 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 April 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 May 2014.