RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01141
            INDEX NUMBER:  108.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 Oct 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His disability discharge from the Air Force with severance  pay  on  6
Feb 03 be changed to a disability retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated his  disability  at  30
percent, which should qualify him for disability retirement.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a  copy  of  the  DVA
rating decision and his DD Form 214.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 11 Jan  96.   On
24 Sep 02, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)  diagnosed  the  applicant
with asthma and recommended he be referred  to  an  Informal  Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB).  On 7 Oct 02, the applicant met an IPEB.  The
IPEB diagnosed the applicant with asthma with a disability  rating  of
10  percent.   The  applicant  was   also   diagnosed   with   chronic
pansinusitus and seasonal allergic rhinitis, which were not considered
compensable or ratable.  The IPEB found that the applicant  was  unfit
and recommended his discharge with severance  pay  with  a  disability
rating of 10 percent.  On 15 Oct 02, the applicant indicated on the AF
Form  1180,  “Action  on  Physical  Evaluation  Board   Findings   and
Recommended Disposition,” that he did not agree with the IPEB findings
and recommended disposition and demanded a Formal Physical  Evaluation
Board (FPEB).  On 8 Nov 02, the FPEB  determined  that  testimony  and
medical evidence confirmed the findings of the IPEB and maintained the
same recommendation that the applicant be  discharged  with  severance
pay with a compensable disability rating of 10 percent.  On 12 Nov 02,
the applicant indicated on the AF Form 1180 he did not agree with  the
findings and recommended disposition of the FPEB and desired to submit
a rebuttal  statement.   The  applicant  failed  to  submit  items  in
rebuttal by the suspense date  of  3  Dec  02.   On  17  Dec  02,  the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) directed that the
applicant be separated from active  service  for  physical  disability
with a 10 percent disability rating.  The applicant was discharged  on
 6 Feb 03 with disability severance pay.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.  At the time of his Physical Evaluation Board, the  applicant
requested retention  on  active  duty.   He  now  requests  disability
retirement from the Air Force based on the  disability  rating  of  30
percent he has been granted by  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs
(DVA).

The Military Disability Evaluation System was established to  maintain
a  fit  and  vital  fighting  force  and  can,  by  law,  only   offer
compensation  for  those  diseases  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.   No  change  in  the
disability rating can occur after permanent disposition,  even  though
the condition may become better or worse.

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.

Due to the number of different factors to consider, it is  noted  that
the DVA ratings may vary from those of  the  DOD  based  on  differing
weighting of evidence (given the same evidence).  Evidence  of  record
shows that the applicant’s condition was essentially unchanged in  Nov
03, compared to when the PEB rated his condition, including results of
pulmonary function tests.  The DVA  initially  rated  the  applicant’s
asthma lower than the Air Force PEB based solely  on  a  single  value
from pulmonary function testing.  Over a year later, the DVA,  without
objective clinical change in  the  applicant’s  condition,  rated  his
asthma 30 percent based  solely  on  a  different  single  value  from
pulmonary function testing.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
23 Sep 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a  response
has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, 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, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
01141 in Executive Session on 2 November 2005, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 21 Sep 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Sep 05.



                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair