RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01326
            INDEX CODE:  108.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be corrected to reflect that he  was  discharged  for  medical
disability reasons.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was  awarded  disability  compensation  by  the  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA).

In support of his request, the applicant provided  copies  of  his  DD  Form
214s, Report of Separation from Active Duty; and, documents associated  with
his DVA rating decision.  His complete submission, with attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on
30 Mar 71.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  sergeant,  having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 3  Mar  73.   On  11
Dec 78, he was voluntarily discharged  from  the  Air  Force,  with  service
characterized as honorable.  He served 7 years, 8 months,  and  10  days  on
active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  reviewed  applicant's  request  and  recommends
denial.  The Medical  Consultant  states  that  for  several  years  he  had
painful calluses on both feet documented less than one month after  entering
military  service.   His  condition  did  not  interfere   with   duty   and
participating in sports activities until 1978 when  he  was  evaluated  with
flexion deformities of the third and fourth toes on both feet.  He  had  the
painful calluses on both feet for over 10 years and they were  beginning  to
interfere with his ability to do his job and the activities he enjoyed.   He
underwent corrective surgery  on  both  feet  in  May  1978.   He  presented
ongoing foot pain in September 1978 and was reevaluated in October.   Having
planned to separate in December 1978,  he  declined  further  surgery.   His
separation physical on 15 Sep 78 noted the pain and surgery  and  determined
them not to be unfitting for continued service.

The DVA rated his condition at 0% effective the time of  his  discharge  and
rated it at 20% as of 29 Sep 99, 20  years  after  his  discharge  from  the
military.  His foot condition did not cause the termination  of  his  career
and he elected to leave  the  service.   A  person  could  acquire  physical
conditions that, although not unfitting  at  the  time  of  separation,  may
later progress in severity and alter the individual's lifestyle  and  future
employability.  The DVA compensation system was written  to  allow  awarding
compensation ratings for conditions that were  not  unfitting  for  military
service.  This is the reason why an  individual  with  a  medical  condition
that does not render the  individual  unfit  for  service  at  the  time  of
separation can some time later receive a compensation rating  from  the  DVA
for that  service  connected  condition.   Had  he  instead  reenlisted  and
experienced recurrent problems with his feet that interfered with duty  thus
rendering him unfit, then a disability  discharge  with  compensation  would
have been indicated.

The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.   DPPD  states
that a review of his case file confirms that he was never  referred  to  the
Disability Evaluation System (DES).  An examination of his  medical  records
shows he was treated for various medical conditions throughout his  military
career; however, it appears  that  none  were  considered  severe  or  grave
enough to require he be presented before a Medical Evaluation  Board  (MEB).
The fact that a person was treated for a medical condition while  on  active
duty does not  automatically  mean  that  the  condition  is  unfitting  for
continued military service.  To be unfitting, the medical condition must  be
such that it by  itself  precludes  them  for  reasonably  fulfilling  their
military duties.  A medical form completed by the applicant at the  time  of
his discharge shows that he rated his present medical condition  as  "good."
The preponderance of evidence in his records clearly shows he  was  fit  for
worldwide duty  at  the  time  of  his  voluntary  discharge.   He  has  not
submitted any material or documentation to  show  he  was  unfit  under  the
provisions of military  laws  and  policy  at  the  time  of  his  voluntary
discharge which would qualify him for Disability Severance Pay.

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  3
Jul 02 for review and comment 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.  We see no  evidence  which  would
lead us to believe  that  at  the  time  of  his  separation,  his  physical
condition was determined to be a physical disability that  disqualified  him
from worldwide military service.  Since there were no disqualifying  medical
conditions at the time of his separation, we see  no  reason  why  he  would
have been eligible for consideration in the  disability  evaluation  system.
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation  of  the  Air  Force
offices 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.  In the absence of persuasive evidence  to  the  contrary,  we
find no compelling 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 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  Docket  Number  02-01326  in
Executive Session on 20 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 02.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Jun 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 26 Jun 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 02.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair