RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02835
            INDEX NUMBER:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her disability discharge from the Air Force for chronic  back  pain  be
overturned and she be reinstated on active duty.

Her medical records be corrected to show that she  is  fit  for  active
duty service.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant provides an overview of the events that led to  her  eventual
discharge for medical reasons.  She states that prior to  entering  the
Air Force, she led a very active life and all  through  basic  training
and the strenuous rigors  of  security  forces  training  never  had  a
problem with her back.  She maintains that it was almost a  year  after
she entered active duty before her back affected her duties in any way.
 Applicant recounts the medical care that she received and how  it  was
eventually determined that she would benefit from cross training into a
different Air Force Specialty Code.   Applicant  states  her  physician
sent a letter to her commander to advise of her medical  condition  and
to encourage a recommendation  for  her  to  cross  train.   After  her
commander did not respond, she and her physician agreed that she  would
have to undergo a medical evaluation board (MEB).  She states that  the
local MEB recommended she cross train, but it would have to be approved
at HQ AFPC.  In Jan 02, she was denied cross training and  advised  she
would be discharged.

The  applicant  states  that  she  was  advised  she  could  rebut  the
recommendation that she be discharged.  During her preparation for  the
formal hearing, she asserts that she found errors and omissions in  her
medical records.  She and her advisor felt that certain  words  in  her
medical records made it unlikely that the Formal Board  would  rule  in
her favor.  The board determined that she should be discharged with 10%
severance  pay.   She  does  not  believe  that  the  Formal   Physical
Evaluation Board gave her a fair review.  She provides details  of  her
duty performance and asserts that she was and is fit  for  active  duty
service.

The applicant provides  copies  of  medical  documents  supporting  her
assertions regarding her medical condition, a copy of her letter to the
FPEB and copies of letters that she wrote to her congressman.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted  in  the  Air  Force  on  1  Dec  99.   She  was
discharged for disability with severance pay on 28 May 02 in the amount
of $5,541.60.

Additional pertinent information  pertaining  to  this  application  is
contained in the evaluations prepared by the appropriate offices of the
Air Force found at Exhibits C and D.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends that the applicant’s request  be
denied.

The applicant entered active duty on an enlistment with a guarantee for
training and  assignment  in  the  security  forces  specialty.   After
arriving at her first  duty  station,  she  developed  back  pain  that
persisted despite medication, physical therapy, and duty  restrictions.
Her evaluation disclosed no structural abnormality or  disease  process
to explain her persistent pain.  Although her x-rays did  show  a  mild
curvature, it was not of sufficient degree to either be formally termed
scoliosis or be disqualifying in the absence of other related problems.
 Her complaints of pain, especially when performing duties required  in
her specialty, such as prolonged standing and carrying  required  gear,
resulted in  repeated  placement  on  physical  duty  limitations  that
prevented her from assignment to duties expected  of  her  for  over  a
year.  This is clearly reflected in her  enlisted  performance  report.
When a medical condition results in physical  profile  limitations  for
one year, a medical board is required  to  determine  whether  the  Air
Force  member  is  fit  for  duty.   The  Physical  Evaluation   Boards
determined that her symptoms of pain rendered her unfit.

Evidence in the medical record and confirmed in her letter to the  BCMR
indicates that she wanted to cross train into another  specialty  other
than security forces.  However, her  enlistment  contract  specifically
stated that she would not be eligible for cross training  into  another
specialty until she completed 59 months on  active  duty.   It  appears
from the medical record (and confirmed in her letter to the BCMR)  that
she was under the impression that the MEB was going to result in  cross
training into another specialty field.   The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant
noted that the applicant failed to show for  further  Physical  Therapy
care following initial assessments in April 2001  and  again  following
her August 2001 referral.  He also notes that the applicant’s report to
the civilian orthopedic surgeon on August 2002 stated that she had  not
had any pain for two years.  This calls into question the motivation of
the applicant and whether her symptoms of back pain were  exploited  to
gain eligibility for cross training before her contract allowed.

The BCMR Medical Consultant disagrees with the reasons  stated  by  the
applicant as to why she was found unfit.  He states  that  it  was  the
applicant’s complaints of chronic pain over a year that led to the  PEB
finding her unfit.  Cross training into  another  field  would  not  be
expected to help her pain since her complaints of  duty  limiting  back
pain appeared to persist despite  over  a  year  of  restrictions  that
limited her to administrative  work.   Furthermore,  many  specialties,
including administrative,  medical,  or  other  support  areas  require
members to be able to  deploy.   He  agrees  with  the  PEBs  that  the
applicant’s condition, regardless of cause, is not compatible with  the
long-term rigors of military service.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends that the  applicant’s  requests  be  denied.   The
applicant was referred to an MEB  and  the  results  forwarded  to  the
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  The Board found  her  unfit
due to her chronic back pain and recommended  that  she  be  discharged
with entitlement to severance pay with a 10%  disability  rating.   The
applicant disagreed with the IPEB’s findings  and  requested  that  she
appear before the Formal PEB (FPEB).

The FPEB confirmed the findings of the IPEB and  also  recommended  the
applicant’s discharge with 10% disability severance pay.  The applicant
disagreed once again and submitted a rebuttal to the Secretary  of  the
Air force Personnel Council (SAFPC).  The  SAFPC  having  reviewed  the
preponderance of evidence  in  the  applicant’s  disability  case,  and
taking into consideration her request to be returned to duty,  directed
that she be discharged.

AFPC/DPPD concludes that the applicant was  treated  fairly  throughout
the Air Force disability evaluation process and that she  was  properly
rated under military disability guidelines.

The complete 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 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To  date,  a  response
has not been received.

________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case;  however,  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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting  the  relief  sought  in
this application.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-02835 in
Executive Session on 4 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 12 Nov 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 17 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jan 03.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair