RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01936
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  Mr. Barie Poore

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her honorable discharge from the Air Force be changed to  reflect  that  she
was medically retired; or,  she  be  considered  for  retirement  under  the
Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) program.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)  erred  in  its  evaluation  by
awarding her a 10% disability rating because current examinations  were  not
performed and the evaluation was based on only a records review.

The Medical Evaluation Board’s (MEB) evaluation did not consider  her  years
of chronic chest pain.

Her counsel discouraged her  from  challenging  the  10%  disability  rating
stating that the formal PEB seldom raised established disability ratings.

In support of her request applicant provides a  personal  statement,  copies
of her military and Veterans Administration medical records  and  copies  of
her military personnel records.  The applicant’s complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is a former noncommissioned officer who, on 18 December 1997,  was
discharged in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) with severance  pay  and
a 10% disability rating.  At the time of her discharge  she  had  served  16
years, 2 months and 13 days of active military service.

The relevant facts  pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted  from  the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared  by  the
appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are a part of these  proceedings
at Exhibits C and D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  recommends  the  application  be  denied.   The
medical consultant states that the PEB knew the significance of all  of  the
applicant’s medical  complaints  and  the  evidence  of  record  establishes
beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was  properly  evaluated  and
rated and that no error or  injustice  occurred  in  this  case.   The  BCMR
Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends the  application  be  denied.   DPPD  states  that  the
applicant was treated fairly throughout the military  disability  evaluation
process, she was properly rated under federal disability guidelines and  was
afforded a full and fair hearing as required under military disability  laws
and policy.  In addition, DPPD states that the  applicant  is  not  eligible
under the TERA program  since  the  program  was  not  offered  to  enlisted
personnel during the period FY97 through FY99.  The DPPD  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  19
October 2001 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Evidence has  not  been  provided
which would lead us to believe that the  applicant’s  disability  processing
and the rating  she  received  at  final  disposition  were  improper.   The
applicant alleges that the Medical Evaluation Board  did  not  review  vital
medical diagnoses rendering the  Physical  Evaluation  Board  an  incomplete
medical summary; and, as  a  consequence,  she  was  awarded  a  10  percent
disability rating.  The applicant points to the disability  assessments  and
rating she received from the DVA to support her claim.  In this  regard,  we
are constrained to  note  that  by  law,  the  DVA  rates  service-connected
conditions on the basis of social  and  industrial  adaptability  while  the
services assign ratings based on the degree of  impairment  for  performance
of  duties.   Therefore,  it  is  entirely  possible  that  the  applicant’s
unfitting condition was rated at 10% while  she  received  a  higher  rating
from the  DVA.   The  evidence  of  record  appears  to  indicate  that  the
applicant  was  afforded  due  process  through  the  disability  evaluation
system.  The applicant has provided  no  evidence  that  would  lead  us  to
believe  the  contrary  was  the  case.   We  therefore   agree   with   the
recommendation of the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  and  adopt  the  rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision.

4.  With respect  to  the  applicant’s  request  to  be  retired  under  the
Temporary  Early  Retirement  Authority,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility that  since
the TERA program was not offered at the time of the applicant’s  separation,
she is ineligible for retirement under this program.  Therefore, we find  no
compelling 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 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
      Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Member
      Mr. Gregory Petkoff, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jul 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 17 Sep 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dtd 15 Oct 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dtd 19 Oct 01.



                                             BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                             Chair