RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03554 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge with a 50 percent disability rating be increased to 80 percent. He be entitled to Concurrent Retired Disability Pay (CRDP). (Administratively Corrected) APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is eligible for CRDP; however, he has not yet received payment. The Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) informed him their records indicate he did not have sufficient service to receive CRDP and advised him to submit a request to the Board to have his service record corrected. In addition, his disability rating with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is 80 percent. Therefore, his medical retirement should reflect 80 percent instead of 50 percent. The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because in 2008, DFAS advised him that he would receive CRDP in annual 10 percent increments beginning in 2014. However, he has not yet received a payment. In support of his requests, the applicant provides copies of his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service and DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 25 September 1987.The applicant entered the Air National Guard. According to the applicant’s NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, he was permanently disability retired effective 22 October 2007, with a compensable percentage for physical disability of 50 percent. He was credited with 29 years, 10 months, and 10 days service for pay and 24 years and 12 days satisfactory service for retirement. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial of the applicant’s request to increase his disability rating to 80 percent. The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to speak directly to the events surrounding his disability process. However, the available documents indicate he was retired for reasons of physical disability with a 50 percent disability rating. As background, the Department of Defense and the DVA disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, USC, Chapter 61, Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability, 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. The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean that the condition is unfitting for continued military service. To be unfitting, the condition must be such that it alone precludes the member from fulfilling their military duties. If the board renders a finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of their career. 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 Air Force must, by law, leave off. Under Title 38, Veterans’ Benefits, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the severity of a condition. DPFD also recommends denial of the applicant’s request for CRDP. DPFD states that in order to qualify for CRDP, a service member must have successfully completed 20 years of active service and the applicant does not meet this threshold. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. DFAS administratively corrected the applicant’s record to reflect his entitlement to CRDP. All military retirees not retired by reason of physical disability, who are receiving disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for a service-connected disability rating of 50 percent or greater, are eligible for CRDP. In addition, members retired by reason of physical disability with 20 years of total active service or 20 years of qualifying service for members of a reserve or guard component are also eligible for CRDP. The applicant is eligible for CRDP and Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC). However, he cannot receive both CRDP and CRSC. DFAS notified the applicant that the CRDP entitlement is greater than his entitlement to CRSC; therefore his military retired pay account has been corrected to reflect this entitlement. A complete copy of the DFAS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 7 April 2015, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). 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 to warrant increasing his disability rating to 80 percent. 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note that DFAS has administratively corrected the applicant’s record to reflect his entitlement to CRDP. Therefore, relief beyond that already granted administratively is not warranted. In view of the above and 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 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 this application in Executive Session on 9 June 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03554 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 August 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 24 December 2014, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, DFAS, dated 25 March 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 April 2015.