RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00388
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since she was released from the hospital out of her  sick  bed  to  be
discharged, her records should  be  corrected  to  reflect  a  medical
discharge for anatomical loss of a creative organ (ovary).

In  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, a statement from the Department of Veterans Affairs  (DVA),
and an Air Force Reserve survey.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force,
on 22 May 82, and voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 3 Oct
82.  She was honorably released from active duty on 24  Mar  85  under
the provisions of AFR 36-12 (Involuntary Release:  Not  Qualified  for
Temporary Promotion).  She was credited with 5 years, 11  months,  and
20 days of total active duty service.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate  offices  of  the
Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial noting that the  applicant’s
service medical records were not available for review.   She  provided
documentation providing evidence that the DVA had awarded a 10 percent
disability rating effective 24 Feb 88 for anatomic loss of a  creative
organ.  She apparently had undergone removal of one ovary while in the
Air  Force.   After  discharge  from  the  Air  Force,  she  underwent
subsequent surgeries resulting in removal of the other ovary  and  her
uterus.

According to the Medical Consultant, the mere presence of  a  physical
defect  or  condition  does  not  qualify  a  member  for   disability
retirement or discharge.  The physical defect or condition must render
the member unfit for duty, and their military career  must  have  been
cut short due  to  the  service-connected  disability.   The  surgical
removal of ovaries, fallopian tubes, or the uterus does not  render  a
member unfit for continued military service and  does  not  qualify  a
member for disability discharge or retirement.  The DVA on  the  other
hand, does rate and compensate for loss of creative  organs.   In  his
view, no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

AFPC/DPPD recommended denial  noting  that  the  applicant  was  never
referred through the Air Force  Disability  Evaluation  System  (DES).
According to AFPC/DPPD, the purpose of the 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.   Those
members  who  are  separated  or  retired  by  reason  of  a  physical
disability may be eligible for certain disability  compensation.   The
decision to process a member through the military DES is determined by
a Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  when  he  or  she  is  determined
disqualified for continued military service.  The decision to  conduct
an MEB is made by the medical treatment facility providing health care
to the member.  The applicant’s military personnel records included  a
medical examination,  dated  13  Mar  85,  which  found  her  fit  for
worldwide  duty  with  no  disqualifying   physical   profiles.    The
examination revealed she  did  not  possess  any  physical  or  mental
reasons to warrant action under AFR 35-4.  In order to qualify  for  a
disability discharge, the applicant would have had to attain a serious
or life threatening medical condition prior to her release from active
duty.  Medical documentation appeared to reflect  she  was  reasonably
capable of performing her assigned duties right up until the  time  of
her release from active duty.

AFPC/DPPD indicated that the purpose of the Air Force DES is to remove
military personnel with unfitting medical conditions from  the  active
strength roles.  The fact that a person may have been  treated  for  a
medical condition  does  not  automatically  mean  the  condition  was
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.   Air
Force disability boards can only  rate  unfitting  medical  conditions
based upon the individual’s  medical  status  at  the  time  of  their
evaluation; in essence a snapshot of the condition at that time.  If a
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) renders a finding  of  unfit,  Federal
law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination
of the member’s  career.   It  must  be  noted  that  the  applicant’s
involuntary administrative discharge action was  for  her  failure  to
meet her promotion opportunity to the grade of first  lieutenant,  and
not for a physical disability.  Disability compensation is  authorized
under the provisions of Chapter  61,  Title  10,  United  States  Code
(USC).

The DVA, however, is chartered to provide continual  medical  care  to
veterans once they depart active duty.  The  applicant’s  referral  to
the medical treatment she received following her release  from  active
duty does not qualify her for compensation under Title  10.   Service-
connected medical conditions may  be  treated  and  compensated  under
Title 38, USC.  Under Title 38, USC, the DVA may increase or  decrease
an individual’s disability rating based  on  the  seriousness  of  the
medical condition  throughout  their  life  span.   This  is  why  the
Services and DVA disability ratings sometimes differ.

According to AFPC/DPPD, the limited military  personnel  records  made
available revealed no errors or irregularities during the  applicant’s
involuntary administrative discharge  process  that  would  justify  a
change to her military records.  The Medical Consultant explained  the
medical aspects of the case, and they wholeheartedly agreed  with  his
advisory.  In their view, the applicant has not submitted any material
or documentation to show an injustice occurred  at  the  time  of  her
involuntary administrative discharge  process  that  would  warrant  a
change to  her  records  to  reflect  she  was  awarded  a  disability
discharge under AFR 35-4.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinions  and  furnished  a  response,
indicating that she disagreed that nothing untoward occurred when  she
was discharged.  She was notified while she was in the  hospital  that
she  was  being  discharged  and  went  from  the  hospital   to   the
administrative section to sign her separation orders.  She  was  still
ill when she received her final  pay  and  drove  herself  home.   The
medical officials at the base were in such  a  hurry  to  fulfill  the
command order that they did not give her a formal physical  and  would
not have even placed her in the hospital in the first place if not for
the intervention of civilian  doctors.   She  is  not  merely  seeking
change in her status because of the subsequent hysterectomy  that  she
had to undergo due to infections in both her fallopian  tubes  leading
to her ovaries, but also  due  to  chronic  left  side  pain  and  the
imbalance in her hormones  which  affected  her  performance  and  was
largely untreated by the Air Force.  At the time she  was  discharged,
she had no idea what was causing her  problems  but  18  years  later,
after many doctors, procedures, and tests, she  has  a  more  definite
opinion as to what is her case.  Because she thinks that the Air Force
should have treated and at  least  determined  what  was  causing  her
problem before discharging her, she  respectfully  requests  that  her
discharge status be changed.

Applicant’s complete response 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 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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we do not  find  it  sufficient  to  override  the  rationale
provided by the Air Force offices of  primary  responsibility  (OPRs).
Therefore, in the absence of evidence that, at time of her  separation
from active duty, the applicant was unfit to perform the duties of her
rank and office, within the meaning of the  law,  we  agree  with  the
recommendations of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  her  burden  of
establishing that she has suffered either an error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, we find no compelling basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 BC-
2003-00388 in Executive Session on 27 May 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 24 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 14 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 29 Apr 03.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair