RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02227
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 Jan 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that his name was  placed  on  the
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), rather than being discharged
with severance pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) rated his multiple disabilities as
one single disability and assigned him a 20 percent disability rating.
 His disabilities should have been evaluated  as  three  separate  and
distinct disabilities and a separate rating should have been  assigned
to each disability.  If this had been done, he believes a rating of at
least 30 percent would have been  assigned  and  he  would  have  been
medically retired.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  provided  a  rating  decision
from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Available documentation indicates the applicant served on active  duty
from 23 Jul 81 to 11 Jul 89.  He entered the Air Force Reserve  on  12
Jul 89.  He reenlisted on 10 Jul 95 for a period of six years  in  the
grade of staff sergeant.  He reenlisted again  on  24  Jun  01  for  a
period of two years in the grade of technical sergeant.

Applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force  Reserve  on  20
Jan 04 under the provisions of AFI 36-3209 (Disability -  Entitled  to
Severance Pay).  He was credited with 12 years, 5 months, and  9  days
of total active service, and 10 years, 4 months, and 15 days of  total
inactive service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Medical  Consultant  recommended  denial  indicating   that   the
applicant actively  participated  in  the  Reserves  as  an  aerospace
maintenance craftsman (C-5  aircraft).   He  was  called  to  extended
active duty on 1 October 01 for a one year mobilization.  Beginning in
Feb 02 the applicant reported bilateral knee pain interfering with the
performance of his duties involving climbing, squatting, or  prolonged
walking diagnosed as patello-femoral  pain  syndrome.   A  10  Jun  02
Flight Surgery entry indicated the  applicant  had  been  assigned  to
administrative duties (since Feb 02).   The  applicant's  active  duty
orders  were  extended  to  accommodate  his  medical  evaluation  and
treatment.  In Oct 03, the applicant had attained  sufficient  service
to become eligible for Reserve retired pay  at  age  60.   Because  of
continued duty limited physical profiles due to  his  knee  pain,  the
applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)  leading  to  his
discharge with severance pay for his knee condition.

A review of the service medical record  shows  diagnosis  of  patello-
femoral pain syndrome (diagnosis also confirmed by orthopedic  surgery
evaluation in Aug 02) involving both knees characterized as pain  with
squatting and climbing ladders and stairs but minimal symptoms walking
on level ground.  Physical examinations showed characteristic findings
of pain about the knee cap (with manipulation) but showed normal range
of motion of the knee and normal strength.  X-rays  including  special
views ("sunrise") of the patella were  reported  as  normal.   Despite
physical therapy, the applicant continued to complain of duty limiting
pain.  Beginning in Nov 02, the applicant complained of low back  pain
for one year  aggravated  by  prolonged  standing  prolonged  sitting,
lifting or carrying.  Medical record entries indicated a complaint  of
generalized back pain involving the lumbar and thoracic areas  without
injury or neurologic symptoms.   On  examination,  the  applicant  was
shown to have normal  back  range  of  motion  and  normal  neurologic
examination.  X-rays of the spine were also normal.

On 17 Sep 03, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found  the
applicant unfit due to bilateral knee  pain,  severe,  persistent  and
recommended discharge with severance pay rating his  condition  at  10
percent.  The IPEB concluded that his history of  recurrent  low  back
pain was not separately unfitting at the time.  The applicant appealed
the decision of the IPEB  and  appeared  before  the  Formal  Physical
Evaluation Board (FPEB)  on  17 Nov  03.   The  FPEB  also  found  the
applicant's knee condition unfitting but rated it  at  an  overall  20
percent.  The FPEB did not find the applicant's history of  back  pain
unfitting and recommended discharge with severance pay  (20  percent).
The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendations  of  the
FPEB on 21 Nov 03 and was discharged with severance pay  on  24 Jan 04
(since he was also eligible for a Reserve retirement at  age  60,  the
applicant had the option to select either disability severance pay  at
the time of separation, or wait until age  60  to  receive  retirement
pay, but not both).

The Medical Consultant noted the applicant submitted a  Department  of
Veterans Affairs (DVA)  Rating  Decision  dated  23  Jun  04  granting
service connection for his knee and back conditions, rating each  knee
at 10 percent and his back at 20 percent.  The Rating Decision cites a
general medical DVA examination on 22 March 04 that showed  limitation
of back and knee motion not shown while in service as  the  basis  for
the DVA rating.

According to the Medical Consultant, his  review  of  the  applicant’s
service medical record showed his knee condition, diagnosed as patello-
femoral pain syndrome, interfered with the performance of  his  duties
and he was assigned to  administrative  duties.   Subsequently,  while
performing administrative duties, he complained of recurrent back pain
without injury or other precipitating event.   Although  he  indicated
this problem also interfered with his duties, examination of the  back
including neurologic exam and  X-rays  was  normal  (except  for  mild
tenderness on palpation).  The Physical Evaluation  Boards  determined
his knee condition and not his back condition was unfitting and  rated
only his knee condition.

Noting the DVA granted the applicant service-connected disability  for
various  conditions  including  his  knee  conditions,   the   Medical
Consultant indicated the Department of the Defense (DoD)  is  required
to use the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) as a  guideline
to  rate  disabilities  that  are  unfitting  for  continued  military
service.  By policy outlined in DoD Instruction 1332.39, the intent is
to rate the degree of  impairment  in  civilian  occupational  earning
capacity using the VASRD as a guide.  It was noted  that  DVA  ratings
may vary from those previously granted by the DoD based  on  differing
weighting and interpretation of evidence (given the same evidence)  or
changes in evidence over time.  In this case, differing  weights  were
likely accorded to objective findings including  X-rays  and  physical
examinations (Air Force PEBs) versus subjective evidence of complaints
of pain (DVA) as well as changing evidence,  range  of  motion  (DVA).
The military service disability systems, operating under Title 10, and
the DVA 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 determinative  or  binding
on decisions made by the other.  The mere fact that the DVA may  grant
service-connected compensation ratings does not establish  eligibility
for similar action from  the  Air  Force.   By  law,  payment  of  DVA
disability compensation and  military  disability  pay  for  the  same
medical condition or disability is prohibited.

The Medical Consultant opined that the preponderance of  the  evidence
of  the  service   medical   record   supported   the   findings   and
recommendations of the Physical Evaluation Boards and that action  and
disposition  in  this  case  were  proper  and  equitable   reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.   In  his
view, no change in the records is warranted.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  26
Jul 05 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and  the
documentation  presented  in  support  of  his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive  to  override  the  rationale  provided  by   the   Medical
Consultant.  The  evidence  of  record  indicates  the  applicant  was
discharged with entitlement to severance pay.  He  now  requests  that
his records be corrected to reflect that his name was  placed  on  the
TDRL.  However, after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances
of this case, no evidence  has  been  presented  which  shows  to  our
satisfaction the applicant was improperly diagnosed or inappropriately
rated.  In view of the foregoing, and in  the  absence  of  sufficient
evidence to the contrary, we adopt the Medical Consultant’s  rationale
as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain  his
burden of establishing that he has suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Accordingly, 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 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-
2004-02227 in Executive Session on 22 Sep 05, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Panel Chair
      Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
      Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 25 Jul 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 05.




                                   CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY
                                   Panel Chair