ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1980-01348
            INDEX CODE:  108.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 Nov 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to reflect that she was  discharged  from  the  Air
Force with a disability retirement, rated at 100%.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  7  Apr  72.   She  was
progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant on 1 Sep 74.  On  4 Jun  75,
she  was  notified  by  her  commander  that  he  was  recommending  she  be
discharged from the Air Force in accordance with AFM 39-12, paragraph  2-4h,
Apathy and Defective Attitude.  The specific reasons for this  action  were:
on 8 Dec 72, she was identified as a drug abuser and entered into  the  drug
rehabilitation program; on  21  Dec  72,  she  was  counseled  for  numerous
incidents of tardiness  and  failure  to  repair;  on  4  Jan  73,  she  was
administered Article 15 punishment for failure to go, in which she  received
a fine of $25 and suspended reduction to  E-2; on 26 Feb 73, she  failed  to
show for a dental appointment; on 6 Mar 73, she was  counseled  regarding  a
positive result in drug urinalysis testing; on 29 May 73, she was  counseled
regarding drug urinalysis testing; on 31  Jul  73,  she  was  counseled  for
showing up late for work; on 15 Jul 74, she was  counseled  for  failure  to
report to duty on time; on 11 Aug 74, she wrote a dishonored  check;  on  11
Sep 74, she failed to report to  duty  on  time;  on  25  Sep  74,  she  was
counseled for habitually being late to work; on  26  Nov  74,  she  wrote  a
dishonored check; on 30 Dec 74, she reported late to work;  on  10  Jan  75,
she was counseled for taking excessive time from work for personal  business
on 13 Jan 75; she was counseled for not returning to duty after  sick  call;
on 15 Jan 75, she was reprimanded for failure to report to work on time;  on
25 Feb 75, she was counseled for coming to work late on 24 and  25  Feb  75;
on 14 Mar 75, she was counseled for failure to repair; on  17  Mar  75,  she
was counseled for reporting late to work; on 8 Apr 75, she received  Article
15 punishment for making a false writing with intent to  defraud,  in  which
she was reduced to E-3 and forfeited $100  per  month  for  two  months;  on
9 May 75, she wrote a dishonored check.

Her commander recommended a general (under honorable conditions)  discharge.
 She was advised of her rights in this matter and  acknowledged  receipt  of
the  notification  on  that  same  date.   A  discharge  evaluation  officer
interviewed the  applicant  and  recommended  she  be  honorably  discharged
without probation and rehabilitation.  In a legal review of  the  case,  the
assistant staff judge  advocate,  found  the  case  legally  sufficient  and
stated that although  the  information  in  her  file  clearly  supported  a
general discharge, in light  of  the  evaluation  officer's  recommendation,
only an honorable discharge, could be  directed.   The  discharge  authority
concurred with  the  recommendation  and  directed  that  she  be  honorably
discharged without probation and rehabilitation.  Applicant  was  discharged
from the Air Force on 24 Jun 75.  She served 3 years, 2 months, and 18  days
on active duty.

On 2 May 79, applicant submitted an application  to  the  AFBCMR  requesting
medical discharge with 100% disability.  On  16  Jul  80,  her  request  was
denied.  For an accounting of the facts and  circumstances  surrounding  his
previous submission and the rationale for  the  Board's  decision,  see  the
Record  of  Proceedings  at  Exhibit  D.   Her  15  Aug  03,   request   for
reconsideration was denied based upon the fact that  she  submitted  no  new
evidence in support of her request (Exhibits E and  F).   On  4  May  05,  a
request  for  reconsideration  was  submitted   through   her   Congressman.
Attached  to  her  request,  applicant  provided  a  recent  Department   of
Veterans'  Affairs  (DVA)  appeals  decision.   Her  Congressman's  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states the fact that  she  has  been  granted  service  connection  for  her
disability by  the  DVA  does  not  entitle  her  to  Air  Force  disability
compensation.   The  military  service  disability  systems  and   the   DVA
disability  systems  are  complementary   systems   not   intended   to   be
duplicative.  Operating  under  different  laws  for  a  different  purpose,
determinations made by the DVA under  Title  38  are  not  determinative  or
binding on decisions made by the services operating  under  Title  10.   The
mere fact that the DVA may grant  service  connection  following  separation
does not establish eligibility for similar action  from  the  service.   The
military disability system under Title  10,  only  offers  compensation  for
those diseases or injuries which specifically rendered the member unfit  for
continued active service,  were  the  cause  of  the  termination  of  their
career, and then only for the degree if impairment present at  the  time  of
separation.  There must be a medical condition that prevents performance  of
any work commensurate with rank and experience.  The  DVA  is  chartered  to
offer compensation and care to eligible veterans without regard  to  whether
it was unfitting for continued  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.   By  law,
payment of DVA compensation and military disability pay is prohibited.   The
presence of medical conditions that were not  unfitting  while  in  service,
and were not the cause of separation or retirement, that later  progress  in
severity causing disability resulting in service connected DVA  compensation
is not a basis to  retroactively  grant  military  disability  discharge  or
compensation.

Although she  was  treated  for  various  gynecologic  conditions  while  in
service, these did not interfere with duties on a sustained  or  significant
basis, did not result in documented duty restrictions,  and  just  prior  to
her administrative discharge, comprehensive gynecological  evaluation  found
no organic pathology.  The separation examination and review of the  service
medical records finds no  medical  condition  that  warranted  referral  for
evaluation in the Disability Evaluation System.  She  was  hospitalized  two
years after  separation  and  treated  for  tubo-ovarian  abscess  formation
requiring surgical removal of her  uterus,  ovaries,  and  fallopian  tubes.
Appeal  through  the  DVA  reversed  prior  denials  of  service  connection
retroactive to the  time  of  her  separation  from  the  Air  Force.   Non-
unfitting service connected conditions that  progress  following  separation
do not qualify for retroactive DoD disability compensation under Title 10.

The Medical Consultant's evaluation, is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded that she was not fit for duty because  she  was  put  on
casual status and on light duty for the last year of  her  four  year  tour.
She reported to the hospital every morning before reporting to duty  picking
up trash in the yard.  This was her job since she was not  able  to  perform
her duties as an inventory specialist.  The doctors at  the  naval  Regional
Medical Center falsified the report when they saw she  was  infected.   That
very day, with stitches in her stomach, she was ordered to report for  work.
 Her commander offered her  an  early  honorable  discharge  since  she  was
having so many medical problems.  She was in a lot of pain and agreed.   The
Medical Consultant focuses on her drug abuse.  Applicant states if her  drug
abuse was so bad then it can still be stated she was unfit for duty.

Her complete response is appended at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice warranting corrective  action.   We  took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits  of  the
case; however, we do not find  her  assertions  sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  We see no  evidence  that
would lead us to believe a physical condition existed at  the  time  of  her
separation  that  would  have  disqualified  her  from  worldwide   military
service.  Therefore, we see no reason why she would have been  eligible  for
consideration in the disability evaluation  system.   It  appears  that  the
actions taken to effect her discharge were not improper or contrary  to  the
provisions of  the  governing  regulations  in  effect  at  the  time.   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, 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.   In  view
of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  agree  with
the  opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  office  of   primary
responsibility and adopt its 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.

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-1980-
01348 in Executive Session on 13 Oct 05, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit D.  Record of Proceedings, dated 16 Jul 80, w/Exhibits.
    Exhibit E.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Aug 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 18 May 04.
      Exhibit G.  Congressional Inquiry, dated 4 May 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 Aug 05.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 1 Sep 05.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Sep 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair