RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02368
                       INDEX CODE:  108.00
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His name be placed on the Temporary Disability  Retired  List  (TDRL),
rather than being discharged with severance pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received a disability discharge with a 10 percent disability rating
and  separated  with  Disability  Severance  pay.   However,   several
disabling conditions were deleted, without explanation and if they had
been properly considered by the Physical  Evaluation  Board  (PEB)  as
required by law and regulation, he contends these additional unfitting
conditions would have increased his total rating to  be  at  least  30
percent and he would have been placed on the TDRL.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as  an  airman  on  16
March 2000 for a period of four (4) years.   The  applicant  prior  to
enlisting in the Air Force served two years in the Air National  Guard
(ANG).

During the time the applicant was on active  duty,  he  experienced  a
variety of medical problems including foot pain related  to  his  flat
feet, headaches, neurocardiogenic syncope  (vaso-vagal  syncope),  and
depression.

The applicant met the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) on 23 April  2002
for Neurocardiogenic syncope originating  in  approximately  September
2000,  Pes  Planovalgus  which  existed  prior  to   service   (EPTS),
Depressive disorder Not Otherwise Specified, with an approximate  date
of origin of August 2001, and mixed  headaches  syndrome,  responding,
originating in 2000.  His case was referred
to  the  PEB  and  the  Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board   (IPEB)
considered his case on 6 May 2002.   The  IPEB  found  him  unfit  for
continued service and recommended discharge  with  severance  pay  for
Neurocardiogenic syncope associated with depressive disorder with a 10
percent disability rating.  He was not rated for Pes Planovalgus  EPTS
or headaches which were controlled.  The applicant concurred with  the
findings of the IPEB and  waived  his  rights  to  a  Formal  Physical
Evaluation Board (FPEB).

On  23  July  2002,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged   with
entitlement to disability severance pay with a disability rating of 10
percent.  He received $8,811.00 in severance pay.  He served 2  years,
4 months and 8 days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Medical  Consultant,   AFBCMR,   states   the   applicant
experienced a variety of intertwined problems  while  on  active  duty
that interfered with his continuing on active duty.   A  preponderance
of evidence supports the conclusion that the applicant had  a  history
of foot problems and depression and probably neurocardiogenic  syncope
prior to service.  In reaching their  findings,  the  PEB  decided  to
consider the applicant’s intertwined unfitting conditions together  in
arriving at a disability rating.  The BCMR Medical Consultant  concurs
with the findings of the IPEB that the applicant’s conditions did  not
warrant a disability retirement or  placement  on  the  TDRL  and  the
discharge with severance pay was appropriate.  Therefore, based on the
evidence presented, the BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denying the
applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPD states the purpose of the  disability  evaluation  system
(DES) is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating  or  retiring
members who are unable to perform the duties of their  office,  grade,
rank or rating.  The members who are separated or retired  for  reason
of a physical  disability  may  be  eligible  for  certain  disability
compensation.  The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)  determines  if  the
servicemember should be processed through the DES to determine if  the
service member’s medical condition  renders  them  fit  or  unfit  for
continued military  service.   The  medical  treatment  facility  that
provides health care to the sevicemember makes the decision whether or
not to conduct an MEB.

DPPD further states the applicant was treated  fairly  throughout  his
disability evaluation processing and  was  rated  properly  under  the
federal disability guidelines, and he was afforded the opportunity for
further review under federal laws and policy.  DPPD concurs  with  the
Medical Consultant’s disposition of the applicant’s case and based  on
the evidence submitted recommend denying the requested relief (Exhibit
D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

On 20  December  2002,  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.   After  thoroughly  reviewing
the applicant’s complete submission, we are  not  persuaded  that  his
disability rating should be increased to the extent that would qualify
him for placement on the Temporary  Disability  Retired  List  (TDRL).
Although it is apparent  that  while  on  active  duty  the  applicant
experienced problems relating to a variety of medical conditions, many
of which existed prior to his entry on active duty,  it  appears  that
his case was properly processed  and  adjudicated  by  the  Air  Force
Disability Evaluation System  which  ultimately  determined  that  his
various conditions  warranted  a  10  percent  disability  rating  for
neurocardiogenic syncope associated  with  depressive  disorder.   The
applicant’s contention that his numerous medical conditions  were  not
properly rated is duly noted.  However, as  indicated  by  the  AFBCMR
Medical Consultant,  it  appears  that  his  various  conditions  were
intertwined and as such, the IPEB rated  them  together  in  order  to
determine his disability rating.  While it is true that the IPEB found
that the applicant has pes  planovalgus,  they  determined  that  this
condition existed prior to  service.   Additionally,  they  found  his
headaches were under control; therefore, although these two conditions
could have been  unfitting,  the  IPEB  found  neither  condition  was
compensable or ratable.  Furthermore, we note that the  applicant  was
given the opportunity to refute the findings of the IPEB and demand  a
Formal Hearing; however, he concurred with the findings of  the  IPEB.
Therefore, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force.  The Board is not persuaded that the  applicant  has
established that the he  has  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Therefore, we agree with the  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force and adopt the rational expressed as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant failed to sustain his burden  of  establishing  the
existence of either an error  or  an  injustice  warranting  favorable
action o these requests.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02368 in Executive Session on 11 February 2003, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
                       Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Ju1 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR, Medical Consultant, dated
                       11 Oct 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 5 Dec 02.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.




                             DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                             Panel Chair