RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02464
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her medical discharge be upgraded to a medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was discharged for supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in her heart,  and
depression.  She was discharged with a 10 percent rating on  her  SVT.   She
is now rated at 30 percent for the SVT, and 10 percent for depression.   The
conditions were incurred while on active duty through no fault of  her  own.
She indicates she is eligible for a medical retirement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 October 1993 in  the  grade
of airman basic for a period of 6 years.

The applicant’s medical records reveal the following:

        A narrative summary prepared for an Medical Evaluation  Board  (MEB)
in   January   2000,   indicated   the   applicant   was   diagnosed    with
supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) with poor  control  on  medical  therapy,
depression - stable by history.  She was not qualified  for  worldwide  duty
and it was determined her conditions were incurred  while  in  the  line  of
duty.  The disposition and recommendation indicated that the  applicant  had
declined  optimal  therapy  and  had  poor  control  on  reasonable  medical
therapy.  It was recommended she not be qualified  for  worldwide  duty  and
would be recommended to be separated from the Air Force.

        On 18  February  2000,  the  commander’s  evaluation  indicated  the
applicant performed her duties in a satisfactory  manner.   Her  duties  did
not require any intense physical challenges and she was operating  within  a
sound team environment and a stable mental health  support  network.   There
was a high probability she would not be able to perform duties  commensurate
with  her  grade  if  she  had  to  deploy  or  mobilize  as  a  Contingency
Contracting Officer  (CCO).   Deployment  exercise  feedback  indicated  the
physical demands in  a  contingency  environment  might  have  exceeded  her
physical capacities.  Comments from her supervisors and superiors  indicated
she appeared to maintain  and  operate  from  an  unusually  unhealthy  life
position often appearing to be  depressed  or  generally  unmotivated.   The
commander further  indicated  it  was  unlikely  the  applicant  would  have
adequately performed the duties required  of  her  office  and  grade  in  a
contingency environment.

        On 23 March 2000, a narrative summary was  prepared  in  preparation
for  an  MEB  regarding  her  psychiatric  history   and   treatment.    The
disposition and/or recommendation indicated the applicant presented  with  a
long history of depressed mood and  irritability  had  acutely  worsened  at
times over the past three years to become major  depressive  episodes.   Her
depression  was  generally   well   controlled   through   medications   and
psychotherapy,  and  had  only   a   mild   or   minimal   effect   on   her
social/industrial functioning.  Due to the recurrent  nature  of  her  major
depressive illness, it was important that she continued to  be  followed  by
psychiatry for treatment of her major depressive disorder.

        On 30 March 2000, the applicant was evaluated  by  an  MEB  and  was
diagnosed  with  DSM-IV  Axis  I:  (296.31)   Major   Depressive   Disorder,
recurrent, mild; Military Impairment (MI): Minimal;  Social  and  Industrial
Impairment (S&I):  Mild and Axis II:  Supraventricular  Tachycardia.   Radio
frequency ablation declined.  They recommended her case be  referred  to  an
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).

        On 10 April 2000, the  Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)
diagnosed the applicant with Category I -  Unfitting  conditions  which  are
compensable   and   ratable:    Supraventricular   tachycardia,   not   well
controlled.  Patient refuses definitive surgical ablation;   Category  II  -
Conditions that can be  unfitting  but  are  not  currently  compensable  or
ratable:  Major  Depressive  disorder.   Additional  findings  of  the  PEB:
applicant is unfit because of physical disability, disability  was  incurred
in line of duty and may be permanent.  She was rated as having a  disability
of ten percent and it was recommended she be discharge with severance pay.

        On 13 April 2000, the applicant did not agree with the findings  and
recommended disposition of the IPEB and requested a formal hearing

        On 3 May 2000, the applicant requested to waive  a  Formal  Physical
Evaluation  Board  (FPEB)  Hearing.   The  applicant  indicated  that  after
receiving  the  explanation  of  the  findings  and   recommendations,   she
requested waiving her earlier election to demand a formal hearing,  for  the
purposes of now concurring with the  IPEB’s  recommendations  and  findings.
She stated  she now feels it was in her best  interest  to  agree  with  the
findings and recommended disposition.

        On 3 May 2000, the FPEB approved the applicant’s request to waive  a
FPEB.

On 16 May 2000, the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force determined  the
applicant physically unfit  for  continued  military  service  and  directed
discharge with severance pay under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1203.

On 3 July 2002, the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty,  in
the  grade  of  senior  airman,  under  the  provisions   of   AFI   36-3212
(Disability, Severance Pay).  She completed six years  and  nine  months  of
total active duty service.

The applicant received an RE code of  2Q  (Personnel  medically  retired  or
discharged).

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision dated 7 April  2003
indicates the applicant’s supraventricular tachycardia was previously  rated
by the DVA at 10 percent and  was  increased  to  30  percent  based  on  an
evaluation in May 2001 with the benefit  effective  retroactive  to  4  July
2000.  The rating decision shows her depression rated at 10 percent.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  recommended  denial.   He  indicates  that  the
applicant was disability discharged with severance pay for  supraventricular
tachycardia.  She also has a history of depression that  was  not  unfitting
at the time of discharge and was not rated or compensated.   The  Department
of Veterans Affairs granted service connected  disability  compensation  for
supra-ventricular tachycardia at 30 percent and depression at 10 percent.

The applicant’s condition that rendered her  unfit  for  continued  military
service was the supraventricular tachycardia that was judged to be  no  more
than a mildly disabling one, and separation with 10 percent  disability  was
appropriately recommended.   At  the  time  of  disability  evaluation,  the
applicant’s depression was not unfitting.  Further the PEB  is  specifically
prohibited from considering worsening of depression due to the  stresses  of
the disability  evaluation  process  and  separation.   Evidence  of  record
establishes beyond all reasonable doubt  that  the  applicant  was  properly
evaluated and rated, that separation  for  physical  disability  with  a  10
percent rating was proper, and that no error or injustice occurred  in  this
case.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated she is entitled to a  30
percent disability rating from the Air Force  which  is  equal  to  the  30%
rating the Veterans Administration granted her effective  the  date  of  her
discharge.  She would still be an active duty member of the  Air  Force  had
she  not  been  medically  discharged  for  a  condition   (supraventricular
tachycardia) she was told was too severe to remain  on  active  duty  and  a
secondary disability (major depressive disorder) that was mildly disabling.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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  warranting  the  applicant’s  medical
discharge be changed to a medical retirement.  After a  thorough  review  of
the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, the discharge appears  to
be in compliance with the governing AFI and we find no evidence to  indicate
that her separation from the  Air  Force  was  inappropriate.   We  find  no
evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing  the  evidence
of record, we do not believe she has suffered from an injustice.  The  Board
is of the opinion the Disability Evaluation System  properly  evaluated  and
rated the applicant.  She has not provided any evidence which would lead  us
to believe otherwise.  In view of the above, we agree with the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Medical Consultant and  adopt  his  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.

_________________________________________________________________




THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an 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-
02464 in Executive Session on 11 February 2004, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                  Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
                  Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 July 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,
               dated 15 December 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 January 2004.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 January 2004.




                                THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                Chair