RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03587
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED: No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  26 MAY 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed  to  a  medical  discharge  and  his  Special
Separation Bonus (SSB) be changed to an SEV.

EXAMINER’S NOTE:  The Board staff has been  unable  to  determine  the
definition of “SEV.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged under the  SSB  program  and  at  the  time  of  his
discharge he had an injury to his knee  that  required  reconstructive
surgery.  He was informed by the medical unit at Wright-Patterson that
the surgery could not be done because he was going to be separated  in
four months and there would not be enough time for rehabilitation  and
he would have to get the knee repaired at the Veterans Affairs (VA).

He believes he should have been extended or discharged medically so he
could have had the surgery.  He needs to have his records  changed  so
he can get the medical treatment he needs.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 23 January 1981
for a period of four years as an airman basic.

In a medical note dated 26 June 1991, the applicant injured  his  left
knee during a softball game.

On 13 November 1991 the applicant underwent  a  physical  therapy  and
orthopedic examination for an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)  sprain
with a follow-up appointment in two months.

The applicant’s medical records show  he  had  medical  visits  for  a
variety of minor acute medical problems following his 13 November 1991
examination, but no medical follow-up for the knee until April 1993.

On 28 April 1993, the applicant reported to the orthopedic clinic with
complaints of continued discomfort  in  his  left  knee,  popping  and
giving way preventing participation in sports activities.

Special Order AA-360, dated 1 June 1993, in  the  applicant’s  records
indicates  the  applicant  had  elected  to  separate  prior  to   his
consultation with the orthopedic surgeon.

On 15 June 1993, the  applicant  was  reevaluated  by  the  orthopedic
clinic concluding with a recommendation for reconstructive surgery for
his knee.  The applicant, on 16 June 1993, was seen by  his  physician
to discuss the proposed knee  surgery  and  indicated  his  intent  to
undergo the surgery “in the near future.”

On 9 July 1993, the  applicant  underwent  a  treadmill  stress  test,
running for over 12 minutes without any reported difficulties (running
4.2 miles per hour up to a 16  percent  incline  during  the  final  3
minutes).

The applicant’s Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) do  not  show  any
evidence of impairment of duty  performance  and  there  are  no  duty
limiting profiles in his medical records.

The applicant submitted a copy of a memorandum signed by the NCOIC  of
Separation/Reenlistment and himself stating “On 9 Sep 93 at  my  final
processing for separation from Air Force active duty  I  was  informed
that I will be required to pay the gross amount of my SSB payment from
my VA disability  payment.   I  disagree  with  this  portion  of  the
agreement and am signing this agreement under duress.”

The applicant’s separation documents reflect he declined a  separation
medical examination.

Applicant’s performance report profile is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             22 Jan 84                  9
             23 Dec 84                  9
              8 Jul 85                  9
                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION (CONT’D)

              8 Jul 86                  9
             15 Mar 88                  8
             15 Mar 89                  9
             15 Sep 89                  9
             15 Sep 90                  5 (New System)
             15 Sep 91                  4 (Four front side
                                                markdowns)
              2 Aug 92                  5 (Two front side
                                                markdowns)

The applicant was honorably released from active duty  on  25 November
1993, under the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  Early  Release  Program,
Special Separation Bonus, in the  grade  of  technical  sergeant.   He
served 12 years, 10 months and 3 days of active duty service.  He  was
paid a lump sum of $39,424.77.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states the Department of Defense
(DoD) Financial Management Regulation, Volume A, Chapter  35,  states,
“A member who has received an SSB and who qualifies for benefits under
the law as administered by  the  VA  shall  have  deducted  from  such
benefits the gross amount of the SSB paid to the member.”

The purpose of the military disability evaluation system (DES)  is  to
maintain a fit and vital force.  The DES only offers compensation  for
those diseases or injuries which specifically render the servicemember
unfit for continued active service, were the cause for termination  of
their career, and only for the degree of  impairment  present  at  the
time of separation.  The mere presence of a medical condition does not
qualify  a   servicemember   for   a   disability   evaluation.    The
servicemember must be considered unfit for military  service  and  the
medical  condition  must  prevent  them  from  performing   any   work
commensurate  with  rank  and  experience.    Further,   active   duty
servicemembers who develop medical problems during the final 12 months
of their active duty period are presumed fit for continued active duty
unless there is clear and convincing evidence to  the  contrary.   For
servicemembers who are in  the  process  of  retiring  or  separating,
medical hold is not approved for the purpose of evaluating or treating
chronic conditions, performing diagnostic studies, elective surgery or
its convalescence, other elective treatment of  remedial  defects,  or
for conditions that do not otherwise  warrant  termination  of  active
duty through the Disability Evaluation System.  When there has been no
serious deterioration within the presumptive period,  the  ability  to
perform duty in the
future shall not be a consideration.  By law, enlisted members may not
be held past a separation date or medical hold without their consent.

The fact the applicant has been granted  service-connected  disability
from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) does not entitle him  to
Air Force disability compensation.  The DVA operates under a  separate
set of laws and specifically addresses long term medical care,  social
support and educational assistance.  The DVA offers  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 also periodically reevaluates veterans  for
possible changes in their disability awards if the level of impairment
has varied over time.  Thus the two systems represent a  continuum  of
medical and disability compensation that starts with entry  on  active
duty and extends for the life of the veteran.  By law, payment  of  VA
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 disability compensation.

The Medical Consultant further states the evidence of record does  not
indicate that disability processing or placement on medical  hold  for
surgery was warranted at  the  time  of  the  applicant’s  separation.
Therefore, he recommends the relief sought in this application not  be
granted.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states at the time
of his examinations he was not given a  comprehensive  examination  to
find out what was actually wrong with his knee and  was  further  told
that he just needed to let the knee heal and work on strengthening the
muscles in the knee after the soft cast was removed.  He believes  the
health care providers did not aggressively treat his  problem  and  he
depended  on  them  to  give  quality  advice  and  proper   treatment
recommendations.

In regard to his knee injury not affecting his  duty  performance,  he
must point out that he could not exercise and his weight  was  at  the
maximum allowed and he struggled not to go over the limit.  During his
annual fitness test he would wrap his knee with two
braces and an ACE bandage to the point where  it  would  cut  off  the
circulation and he would run the 1.5 miles and immediately remove  the
wraps.  He was not fit for duty during this  time.   He  was  able  to
accomplish the treadmill test because he had wrapped his knee and  ran
on the outside of his foot with his leg turned inward.

He does  not  remember  declining  a  separation  medical  evaluation.
Considering his many health problems (i.e., leg,  back,  chest  pains,
sinus problems), it would have been stupid  for  him  to  decline  the
medical evaluation.

During the VA visit he  was  informed  that  they  would  perform  the
surgery if needed, but that 100 percent of any compensation  he  would
receive would have to go to repay his SSB.  This meant during the 6 to
12 month rehabilitation period he would have nothing to live on.   The
SSB he received was used to pay off bills and  there  was  not  enough
left to sustain his family during the rehabilitation (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 of 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  the
case.  However,  we  do  not  find  it  sufficient  to  override  the
rationale provided by the Medical Consultant.  No evidence  has  been
presented which shows to our  satisfaction  the  applicant’s  medical
condition rendered him unfit to perform the duties of  his  rank  and
office, within  the  meaning  of  the  law.   In  this  respect,  the
applicant has failed to provide sufficient persuasive  evidence  that
he had a condition that would have warranted processing  through  the
disability evaluation system.  Rather, based on the documentation  in
the applicant’s records, he voluntarily separated  from  active  duty
under the provisions of the Early Release Program with entitlement to
an SSB.  In view of the foregoing, we agree with  the  recommendation
of Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the  basis  for  our
decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of
establishing  he  has  suffered  either  an   error   or   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-
2004-03587  in  Executive  Session  on  12  October  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                       Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                       Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                 9 Aug 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Aug 05.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 22 Aug 05.




                       MARILYN M. THOMAS
                       Vice Chair