RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  99-03131
                 INDEX CODE:  110.02, 108.10
      APPLICANT        COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her voluntary retirement be changed to  a  disability  retirement  and  she
receive clothing allowance retroactive to the date of her disability.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She is unable to complete/fulfill her military United  States  Air  Force
Reserve (USAFR) obligation due to a disorder (medical condition) acquired
while on active  duty  and  the  USAFR  will  not  grant  her  a  medical
retirement.

In support of the application, the applicant provides a personal  statement,
photos, AF Form 422, and copies of medical records from  the  Department  of
Veteran Affairs (DVA).

A complete copy of the submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air  Force  on  7  August  1979  and
voluntarily separated from active duty on 7 August 1992  under  the  Special
Separation  Benefit  Program  (SSB),  receiving  a   separation   bonus   of
$34,692.84.  She was credited with 13  years  and  1  day  of  total  active
federal military service (TAFMS).  She  subsequently  enlisted  in  the  Air
Force Reserve on 8 Aug 92 for a period of 6 years and reenlisted  on  7  Aug
98 for a period of 4 years.  On 4 January 1999 she was assigned  to  HQ  Air
Reserve Personnel Center (NNRPS) in a non-participating status.  During  her
8  years  in  the  USAFR  she  has  completed  4  qualifying  years  towards
retirement.  As of 7 August 2000 she has been  credited  with  17  years,  0
months and 1 day of satisfactory military service.

The relevant facts, extracted from the available record,  are  contained  in
the  letters  prepared  by  the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air   Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to  recite  these  facts  in  this  Record  of
Proceedings.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed the case and is of the opinion  that
no change in the records is  warranted  and  the  application  should  be
denied.  The Medical Consultant states that the applicant clearly had  no
unfitting conditions at the time of her voluntary separation from  active
duty in August 1992, and her acceptance into the Reserve  Force  was  not
questioned.  Since there were no unfitting medical conditions at the time
of her  separation,  she  was  not  eligible  for  consideration  in  the
disability  evaluation  system.   The  later  development  of  conditions
secondary to her non-unfitting problem was something for  the  Department
of Veteran Affairs (DVA) to evaluate and compensate if appropriate.

The applicant applied  to  the  DVA  in  September  1992  for  disability
compensation and was rated 50% for vitiligo (a depigmintation process  of
the skin which is  not  unfitting  for  military  service)  and  10%  for
residual tenderness of her left knee that had been sprained while in  the
service.  Added to her list of DVA compensated problems  were  depression
secondary to skin problems (30% effective 6 Jul 99) and pain post-removal
of both little toenails (10% effective 6 Jul 99).  Both of  these  latter
conditions were found  to  be  service-connected.  Since  reservists  are
required to report any change in their medical status that  might  affect
their qualification for duty, it was inherent on the applicant to comply.
 It appears to the Medical Consultant that  the  applicant  has  received
Reserve pay and points while receiving DVA disability compensation for  a
period of some 5 years, a situation that is  not  allowed  by  law.   The
Medical Consultant indicates that the  Reserve  Surgeon  was  correct  in
finding the applicant disqualified for further  service  considering  the
treatment  she  was  receiving  for  depression,  and  her  release   was
appropriate.

A complete copy of the advisory is at Exhibit C.

The USAF Physical Disability Division,  AFPC/DPPD,  reviewed  the  case  and
recommended denial.   The  processing  of  a  military  member  through  the
military disability evaluation system is determined by a Medical  Evaluation
Board (MEB) when the member is determined to be medically  disqualified  for
continued military service.  The decision to conduct an MEB is made  by  the
medical treatment facility providing the health  care  to  the  member.   An
examination of  the  applicant's  records  revealed  a  medical  examination
completed on 23 Jul  92  reflects  her  as  being  qualified  for  worldwide
service and eligible for duty within the Air Force  Reserve.   Although  her
records show that she was treated for various  medical  condition  while  on
active duty, none indicate that any of these conditions were  severe  enough
to preclude her from performing her military duties.  Air Reserve  Component
(ARC) members who have medical conditions that  are  service  connected  and
incurred while on active duty but are not  serious  enough  to  cause  early
termination of a military career are not compensated under Title 10,  United
States Code (USC); however, they may be compensated under Title 38, USC,  by
the Veterans Administration (VA).

DPPD indicates that there was no evidence of any physical  disability  under
the provisions of military disability  laws  and  policy  which  would  have
justified an MEB or a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) finding  of  unfitness
prior to her voluntary discharge from  active  duty.   The  member  has  not
submitted any material or documentation to show  she  was  unfit  due  to  a
physical disability under the provisions of Chapter 61,  Title  10,  USC  at
the time of her  release  from  active  duty.   Therefore,  DPPD  recommends
denial of the applicant's request (Exhibit D).

The Director of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DPP,  reviewed  the  case
and states that to be eligible for Reserve retired pay under Title  10  USC,
Section 12731 the applicant needs to complete at least 15  years,  but  less
than 20 years of satisfactory service, with the last 6 years  of  qualifying
service in a Reserve component.  The applicant has not  completed  20  years
of service, therefore she is not entitled to retired pay under provision  of
Title 10, USC, Section 12731.  To be eligible under Title 10,  USC,  Section
12731a, she must have been separated from the Selective Reserve (to  include
medical disqualification) between 5 October  1994  and  30  September  2001.
The applicant has completed 17 years of service; however, she has  completed
only 4, of the required last 6, years of qualifying  service  in  a  Reserve
component.  Therefore, she is not eligible for retirement  under  Title  10,
USC, Section 12731a.

DPP states that to establish eligibility for retirement under the  Temporary
Early Retirement Authority (TERA), the  applicant  must  have  completed  at
least 15 years of TAFMS.  The applicant completed only  13  years  of  TAFMS
and consequently does not qualify for  retirement  under  TERA.   Therefore,
since the applicant does not meet the minimum requirements  of  the  Reserve
retirement programs, she does not qualify for retirement  or  benefits  from
the USAFR (Exhibit E).

In addressing the retroactive clothing allowance issue, the  Chief,  Reserve
Pay,  AFRPO/FMFQ-P  states  that  replacement  clothing   is   provided   to
Reservists on an item-for-item basis; serviceable for  unserviceable,  based
on fair wear and tear.  After reviewing the  applicant's  case,  the  Chief,
Reserve Pay could not find  justification  or  any  regulatory  guidance  to
provide a monetary entitlement for replacement  clothing  to  the  applicant
(Exhibit F).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  20
October 2000 for review and response.  As of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response (Exhibit G).

___________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice. We took note  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case and  do  not  find  it
supports a determination that the applicant was  improperly  separated  from
active duty in  1992  or  that  her  physical  disqualification  for  Resere
service in 1998 was erroneous or unjust.  The  applicant's  medical  records
indicate that there were no unfitting conditions that would  disqualify  her
for worldwide military service at the time of her voluntary separation  from
active duty under the  Special  Separation  Benefit  (SSB)  Program.   Since
there were no unfitting medical conditions at the time  of  her  separation,
she would not be eligible for consideration  in  the  disability  evaluation
system.  While the Board is  sympathetic  to  the  applicant's  plight  with
respect to her skin condition (vitiligo),  no  evidence  has  been  provided
which would lead us to believe  that  a  physical  disability  existed  that
warranted a finding of unfitness in accordance with the governing Air  Force
instruction, which implements the law.  Therefore,  we  find  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  With  respect  to  the  applicant's  request  for  retroactive  clothing
allowance, we agree with the opinion and recommendation  of  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  Therefore, absent any justification or  regulatory  guidance  to
provide monetary entitlement for replacement clothing, we find no  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 23 January 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Robert W. Zook, Panel Chair
      Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Member
      Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Nov 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  BCMR Medical Consultant Letter, dated 3 Feb 00,
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 1 Mar 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 5 Oct 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFRPO/FMFQ-P, dated 1 Aug 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Oct 00.





                                   ROBERT W. ZOOK
                                   Panel Chair