RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02630
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge from the  Air  Force  be  changed  to  reflect  that  she  was
medically retired.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Subsequent to her discharge she was  assigned  a  disability  rating  of  30
percent by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA).

In support of her request, applicant provided documentation associated  with
her DVA rating decision; and a copy  of  her  DD Form  214,  Certificate  of
Discharge or  Release  from  Active  Duty.  Her  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air  Force  on  3
Jan 89.  She was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  senior  airman,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  3  Jan  92.
She was discharged on 1 Feb 98 at the completion of  her  required  term  of
service.  She served 9 years and 29 days on active duty.

On 15 Jul 99, the DVA assigned the applicant an evaluation  of  sciatica  at
10 percent disabling and a evaluation of a right rotator cuff injury  as  20
percent disabling for a combined disability rating of 30 percent.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states that the applicant had intermittent low  back  pain  associated  with
pain radiation into her leg.  Her episodes were brief and  occurred  roughly
annually.  Three months prior to her planned separation,  she  fell  on  ice
and sustained a strain of the  ligaments  of  her  right  shoulder  (rotator
cuff).  Her  condition  resolved  with  physical  therapy  and  the  records
document she was pain free with a normal  range  of  motion.   Her  shoulder
injury was not unfitting for continued  service.   Following  discharge  she
was properly rated and compensated by the DVA.   For  an  individual  to  be
considered unfit for military service, there must be a medical condition  so
severe that it prevents performance of any work commensurate with  rank  and
experience.  In this case, her conditions  did  not  render  her  unfit  for
continued service.  Because a person can acquire physical  conditions  that,
although not unfitting at the time of  separation,  may  later  progress  in
severity and alter the individual's lifestyle, 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  soon   thereafter   receive   a
compensation rating  from  the  DVA  for  the  service  connected,  but  not
militarily unfitting condition.  Evidence of record establishes  beyond  all
reasonable doubt that she  was  fit  at  the  time  of  her  separation  for
continued service and that no error or  injustice  occurred  in  this  case.
The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD   recommends   denial.    DPPD   noted   numerous   administrative
discrepancies within the applicant's separation documents  and  states  that
her request for disability is primarily supported  by  her  DVA  evaluation.
She apparently believes that since her DVA rating now equates to 30  percent
she is now eligible for an Air Force disability  retirement.   In  order  to
qualify for an Air Force disability retirement, she would have had  to  been
referred  to  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  with  a   serious   life
threatening medical condition with an overall disability rating of at  least
30 percent prior to her release form active duty.  Her records show she  was
reasonably capable of performing her military  duties  right  up  until  the
time of her involuntary release from active duty.  The fact  that  a  person
may have a medical condition does not automatically mean  the  condition  is
unfitting for continued military service.   To  be  unfitting,  the  medical
condition must  be  such  that  it  by  itself  precludes  the  person  from
fulfilling the purpose for which he or  she  is  employed.   DPPD  found  no
reason why her records should be  amended  to  reflect  she  was  awarded  a
disability retirement under military disability laws and policy.   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  7
Feb 03 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 error or injustice.  Evidence  has  not  been  presented  which
would lead us to believe that the applicant's disability processing and  the
final disposition of her case were in error or  contrary  to  the  governing
Air Force regulations, which implement the law.  We agree with the  opinions
and recommendations 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
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  BC-2002-00999
in Executive Session on 6 May 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Vaughn Schlunz, Member
      Ms. Mary J. Johnson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, Dated 28 Jan 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Feb 03.



                                   ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                   Panel Chair