RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03825
            INDEX NUMBER:  145.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to show she was  medically  retired  from  the  Air
Force and not disability discharged with severance pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her DD Form 214 should reflect she  was  medically  retired  as  opposed  to
being separated.  She is rated 100% disabled by the  Department  of  Veteran
Affairs, and needs access to base privileges.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 14 April 1999  for  a  period
of four years.  She was referred for medical evaluation board in July  2002,
for Dysthymic Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress disorder, Eating Disorder  not
otherwise  specified,  Occupational  Problems  and  Histrionic   Personality
Disorder.  On 22 August 2002, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board  (IPEB)
considered her case and rated her occupational impairment at 30%.   However,
in accordance with DoD disability policy deducted  for  her  non-compensable
Histrionic Personality Disorder, she received a  final  rating  of  10%  and
recommended for discharge with severance pay.   On  5  September  2002,  the
applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of  the  IPEB
and waived her right to a Formal Physical  Evaluation  Board  hearing.   She
was discharged on 14 November 2002, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3212,
for Disability, (Severance Pay) with an honorable discharge.  She  served  a
total of 3 years, 6 months and 21 days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The IPEB properly rated  the
applicant’s condition at the  time  of  her  evaluation  in  the  disability
evaluation system based on the  evidence  of  occupational  functioning  and
clinical  evidence  provided  by  psychiatrists.   The  IPEB  also  properly
applied a rating deduction for the contribution to her level of  social  and
industrial adaptability impairment (record  indicates  social  greater  than
industrial) made by the non-compensable personality  disorder.   Personality
Disorders (and other certain disorders) are conditions  not  constituting  a
physical disability that often significantly contribute to, or  may  be  the
chief cause of, any industrial and industrially  related  social  impairment
suffered by the  service  member  who  has  a  compensable  neuropsychiatric
condition.  Disability resulting from the contribution  of  the  personality
disorder will not be rated.   In  such  instances,  the  overall  rating  of
psychiatric impairment will be reduced to the impairment rating  that  would
be warranted  in  the  absence  of  the  influence  of  the  non-compensable
condition according to  generally  accepted  medical  principles.   Further,
increased severity  of  psychiatric  symptoms  due  to  transient  stressors
associated with the  PEB  and  prospect  of  separation  or  retirement  and
relocation or re-employment  will  not  be  considered  in  determining  the
degree of impairment.

The military service disability systems, operating under Title 10,  and  the
Department of Veterans Affairs Disability System, operating under Title  38,
are complementary systems not intended to be duplicative.   Operating  under
different laws with a different purpose,  determinations  made  by  the  DoD
under Title 10 and the DVA under Title 38 are  not  binding  on  the  other.
The Military Disability Evaluation System, established  to  maintain  a  fit
and  vital  fighting  force,  can  by  law  under  Title  10,   only   offer
compensation for those disease or injuries  which  specifically  rendered  a
member unfit for continued active service, were the  cause  for  termination
of their career, and then only for the degree of impairment present  at  the
time of separation.  The DVA operates under  a  separate  set  of  laws  and
specifically  addresses  long  term  medical  care,   social   support   and
educational assistance.  The DVA is  chartered  to  offer  compensation  and
care to all eligible veterans for any service connected  disease  or  injury
without regard to whether it was unfitting for continued  military  service.
The DVA is also  empowered  to  reevaluate  veterans  periodically  for  the
purpose of changing their disability awards if  their  level  of  impairment
varies over time.

Action and disposition in this case  are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________





APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20  Jul
04, 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  her  disability  discharge  and  the  final
disposition of her case were in error or  contrary  to  the  governing  Air
Force instructions, which implement the law.  Therefore, we agree with  the
opinion  and  recommendation  of  the   Air   Force   office   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.

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 issue(s) 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 this application  in Executive
Session on 14 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
            Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
            Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2003-03825:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 03.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 11 Jul 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR , dated 20 Jul 04.




               OLGA M. CRERAR
               Panel Chair