RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01026

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  DAV

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her disability rating be changed back to a compensable rating  greater  than
30%.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on a Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) reevaluation in  October
1999, which did  not  portray  her  condition,  her  disability  rating  was
reduced  from  50%  to  30%.   However,  five  months  prior  to  the   TDRL
reevaluation, the Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  rated  the  same
condition as severe, with a compensable rating of 70%.

The  applicant  states  that  she  disagrees  with  the  Informal   Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB) findings that  her  condition  is  not  expected  to
significantly change in the next couple of years.  Since  the  reevaluation,
she has been hospitalized on four occasions.  Her condition was  not  stable
and has deteriorated.  Had the reevaluation discovered her instability,  she
would have remained on the  TDRL  throughout  her  hospitalizations  and  an
accurate picture of the permanent impairment would have been possible.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits extracts  from  her  service
and DVA medical records.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force and entered active  duty  on
21 January 1985.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 27 February 1998, to  determine
whether she should be continued on active duty due to  depressed  mood  with
disturbance in occupational functioning.  Based on the  diagnosis  of  major
depressive  disorder,  recurrent,  severe,  with  psychotic  features,  they
referred her to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).

On 21 May 1998, an IPEB convened and determined she was unfit and  based  on
the diagnosis of major depressive  disorder,  recurrent,  with  considerable
social and industrial adaptability impairment, VASRD 9434,  recommended  she
be temporarily retired with a 50% disability rating.  She  agreed  with  the
findings and recommendations of the IPEB.

On 3 August 1998, her name was placed on the  Temporary  Disability  Retired
List (TDRL) with a compensable disability rating of 50%.  She  completed  13
years, 6 months, and 12 days of active service.

On 10 August 1999, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)  awarded  her  a
combined compensable disability rating of  90%  based  on  major  depressive
disorder, with psychotic  features  -  70%;  allergic  conjunctivitis,  shin
splints and stress fracture right leg - 10%; hypothyroidism  with  goiter  -
10%; chronic lumbosacral strain - 10%; left wrist fracture,  post  operative
with scars - 10%; left carpal tunnel syndrome  -  10%;  temporal  mandibular
joint syndrome - 10%; ecema - 10%; cholecustectomy - 0%; and scars  residual
to tattoo removal, mole excision, right shoulder - 0%.  She was entitled  to
receive compensation at the 100% rate because she was  unemployable  due  to
service-connected disability.

On 19 October 1999, she underwent a TDRL  reevaluation  that  diagnosed  her
condition as major depressive  disorder,  recurrent,  in  partial  remission
with  treatment.   Her  degree  of  impairment  for  military  service   was
determined to have been marked and her degree  of  impairment  for  civilian
social and industrial adaptability was determined to have been moderate.

An IPEB convened on 1 November 1999, and based on  the  diagnosis  of  major
depressive   disorder,   definite   social   and   industrial   adaptability
impairment, VASRD  9434,  rated  at  30%,  recommended  she  be  permanently
retired with a 30% disability rating.  The IPEB noted that  the  applicant’s
medical condition had improved since her  placement  on  the  TDRL  and  her
symptoms were minimal.  The applicant did not agree with  the  findings  and
recommendation of the IPEB and submitted a written rebuttal  in  lieu  of  a
formal board.

The Secretary of the Air Force  Personnel  Council  (SAFPC)  considered  the
applicant’s rebuttal to the findings of the IPEB and  determined  the  level
of impairment of  her  major  depressive  disorder  was  best  described  as
definite, with a 30% disability rating.

Effective 22 February 2000, she was removed from the  TDRL  and  permanently
retirement by reason of physical disability in the grade of staff  sergeant,
with a compensable disability rating of 30%.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  states,  in  part,  that   the   applicant’s
supporting  evidence  rests  only   on   her   report   and   her   civilian
psychologist’s report rendered two years after the final disposition of  her
case and only weakly supports consideration for an increase in her  military
disability rating.  There is no clear evidence of  impropriety  or  inequity
in her disability discharge or rating;  however,  the  adjudication  of  30%
versus 50% is  based  on  subjective  reporting  of  symptoms  that  are  in
dispute.  The applicant contends that her TDRL evaluation  and  rating  were
improper because the Air Force psychiatrist rushed the evaluation  and  made
errors in the narrative summary.  In spite of this, she waived her right  to
a formal hearing that would have  afforded  the  opportunity  for  a  second
psychiatry evaluation to be considered by the board.  The evidence does  not
support a rating of 70% at the time of permanent retirement.   Although  the
DVA rated her at 70% based on historical information she reported  to  them,
she does not receive her mental  health  care  through  the  DVA  and  their
assessment  was  based  on  information  she  reported  to  the   evaluating
psychologist.  Furthermore, although the  Air  Force  is  required  to  rate
disabilities in accordance with the DVA Schedule  for  Rating  Disabilities,
the DVA operates under a totally separate system with a different  statutory
basis.  The DVA rates for any and all service-connected conditions,  to  the
degree they interfere with future employability,  without  consideration  of
fitness.  Whereas the Air Force rates a member's  disability  based  on  the
degree of severity at the time  of  separation.   The  psychologist  reports
submitted by the applicant detailing more severe symptoms seem  as  credible
as the TDRL evaluation report and there is no way to resolve the conflict.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied.  AFPC/DPPD states, in  part,
that the applicant has not submitted  any  documentation  to  show  she  was
improperly rated or processed  under  the  provisions  of  federal  law  and
policy at the time of her permanent disability retirement.

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

She met the criteria for a higher disability rating;  however,  the  results
of her examination did not portray her condition because it was  inadequate.
 Had the examination been adequate, it would have shown that  her  condition
was unstable and she would have remained on the TDRL.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the  evidence
of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded  that  relief
should be granted.  The applicant contends, in essence, that  had  her  TDRL
reevaluation  examination  properly  portrayed  her   condition   as   being
unstable,  she  would   have   remained   on   the   TDRL   throughout   her
hospitalizations and ultimately awarded  a  disability  rating  higher  than
30%.   We  disagree.   In  this  respect,  we  note  that  during  the  TDRL
reevaluation examination, the applicant denied recurrence  of  any  symptoms
suggestive of psychosis or depression.  In addition, she indicated that  she
was spending a considerable amount of time caring for  her  elderly  parents
and enjoying her part  time  job.  In  view  of  this,  and  since  she  was
responding to her prescribed  medication,  with  minimal  side  effects  and
remission of depressive symptoms, the examining psychiatrist determined  the
severity of her Social and Industrial adaptability was moderate.  The  IPEB,
however, noted  that  her  symptoms  were  minimal  and  that  she  did  not
demonstrate a significant requirement for hospitalization.   Therefore,  the
IPEB determined the severity of her Social and Industrial  adaptability  was
best described as definite and recommended that she be  permanently  retired
with a rating of  30%.   The  applicant  did  not  concur  with  the  IPEB’s
findings and waived her right to a formal PEB, instead choosing  to  provide
a written appeal to  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council
(SAFPC).  The SAFPC considered her written appeal,  which  included  her  10
August  1999  DVA  rating  decision,   and   concurred   with   the   IPEB’s
recommendation to permanently retire her with a 30%  rating.   Although  the
Air Force is required to  rate  disabilities  in  accordance  with  the  DVA
Schedule for Rating Disabilities, the DVA operates under a totally  separate
system with a different statutory basis.  The DVA  rates  for  any  and  all
service-connected conditions, to  the  degree  they  interfere  with  future
employability, without consideration of  fitness.   Whereas  the  Air  Force
rates a member's disability based on the degree of severity at the  time  of
separation.  In the applicant’s case, at the time of her  TDRL  reevaluation
examination there had been no  requirement  for  hospitalization  since  her
initial hospitalization in January 1998.  Based on a review of the  evidence
provided, we are not persuaded that she was  inappropriately  rated  at  the
time of her permanent retirement or that the assigned  rating  was  contrary
to the governing Air Force Instruction which implements the  law.   In  view
of the foregoing, and in the absence of 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 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  02-01026  in
Executive Session on 16 January 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 6 Nov 02.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 02.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Dec 02, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair