RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00667
            INDEX NUMBER:  145.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected  to  show  she  was  retired  because  of  physical
disability with a disability rating of 30% or 50%,  rather  than  discharged
with entitlement to disability severance pay with a  compensable  rating  of
10%.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her Formal Physical Evaluation Board  (FPEB)  was  a  mistrial  due  to  the
incompetence of the board members and the total disregard for her  abilities
to do her job in the Air Force.  Her  disability  rating  was  an  injustice
because  her  rating  was  based  on  muscular,  postural  and  soft  tissue
problems.  She endured  physical  hardship  while  in  a  plaster  cast  and
crutches.  The snow, plaster cast and crutches  hampered  her  mobility  and
aggravated the trunk part of her body, her back and loss of muscle tone.

In support of her appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, copies  of
her email communications regarding her Air Force disability benefits  and  a
copy of her Department of Veterans  Affairs  Rating  Decision.   Applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is a former enlisted member of the Regular Air  Force  who,  on  1
May 1986, was discharged in the grade  of  airman  first  class  (E-3)  with
severance pay and a 10% disability rating.  At the  time  of  her  discharge
she had served 2  years  and  14  days  of  active  military  service.   She
received  three  Airman  Performance  Reports  closing  17  April  1985,  22
November 1985 and 22 March 1986, in which the overall ratings were 9, 8,  9,
respectively.

Available rating decisions by  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)
indicate  the  applicant  received  combined  compensable  ratings  for  her
service connected conditions of 10% from 2 May 1986, 50% from  5  May  1988,
100% from 27 May 1988, and 50% from 1 July 1988.


The  remaining  relevant  medical  facts  pertaining  to  this  application,
extracted from the applicant's medical records, are contained in the  letter
prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant which is located at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied.  The  BCMR
Medical  Consultant  states  the  applicant  underwent  evaluation  by   the
Disability  Evaluation  System  for  chronic  shin  splints  that   occurred
whenever she was required to run or march. Despite  treatment  and  profiles
preventing participation in  running  and  marching,  the  applicant’s  pain
continued to occur.  The Informal Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)  found
the applicant unfit for continued military service due to her  chronic  shin
splints  (rated  10  percent)  and  recommended  disability  discharge  with
severance pay.  The BCMR Medical Consultant  further  states  the  applicant
appealed for return to duty to the Formal Physical Evaluation Board  (FPEB).
 The FPEB upheld the findings and recommendation of the IPEB.  After  noting
the differences in the statutory criteria for  disability  rating  decisions
by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs,  it  is
the opinion of the BCMR Medical  Consultant  that  the  evidence  of  record
establishes beyond all reasonable doubt  that  the  applicant  was  properly
evaluated and rated, and her separation for physical disability  with  a  10
percent rating was proper.  The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

On 31 August 2004, a copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  sent  to  the
applicant for review and comment.  As of  the  date,  this  office  has  not
received a 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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of this case.   However,  evidence
has not been provided that would suggest the actions  taken  to  effect  her
discharge  were  improper  or  contrary  to  Air  Force  regulations.    The
applicant points to the disability assessment and rating she  received  from
the DVA to support her claim.  In this regard, we are  constrained  to  note
that by  law,  following  findings  of  unfitness,  it  is  an  individual’s
condition at the time  of  separation  or  final  disposition  that  governs
whether he or she is discharged or retired because of  physical  disability.
After separation, compensation  based  on  increases  or  decreases  in  the
severity of the former service member’s condition are the responsibility  of
the DVA.  Furthermore, the DVA rates  service-connected  conditions  on  the
basis of social and industrial adaptability while the services  base  rating
decisions on the  degree  of  impairment  for  performance  of  duties.   We
believe  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  for  approximately  two  years
following her separation, the compensable rating awarded by the DVA was  the
same at that established at  the  time  of  her  separation,  which  in  our
estimation, tends to support the Air Force assessment of her condition.   In
view of the above and in the absence  of  evidence  by  the  applicant  that
would lead us to  believe  that  military  medical  authorities  erroneously
evaluated the severity of her unfitting condition vis-à-vis her  ability  to
perform her duties, we agree with the  opinion  and  recommendation  of  the
BCMR 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, 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 probable 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 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
            Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
            Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
04-00667:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Feb 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 18 Aug 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Aug 04.





               THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
               Chair