RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03293
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 NOV 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

It appears the applicant is requesting his honorable  discharge  be
changed to a medical retirement and that he be eligible for Combat-
Related Special Compensation (CRSC).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His injuries and illnesses are all service-connected.  He  did  not
retire from the Air Force and  his  application  is  based  on  80%
service-connected disability related to combat while serving in the
United States Air Force in Vietnam.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  on  9  Jul  64.  His
highest grade held was airman first class.  He  served  in  Vietnam
from Nov 65 to Nov 66.   On  8  Jul  68,  applicant  was  honorably
discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12.  He was credited with
4 years of active duty service.

On 14 Oct 04, Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Disability
Operations Branch denied applicant’s request for CRSC  compensation
based on failure to meet the service requirement of retirement with
20 years or more of service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial  of  applicant’s  request  stating,  in
part, since he did  not  complete  at  least  20  years  of  active
service, he is not eligible for compensation under CRSC.

AFPC/DPPD’s complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicates all of his  disabilities  are  due  to  combat-
related injuries received while serving in Vietnam.   His  problems
have bothered him over  the  past  30  years.   He  associates  his
problems with Agent Orange.  As  soon  as  the  facts  about  Agent
Orange became apparent, he began to be  treated  for  diabetes  and
other medical problems related to Agent Orange.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed  this  application   and
recommended denial.  While  in  service,  service  medical  records
document a non-displaced fracture of the right ankle  treated  with
casting in Jun 66 and a sprained left ankle in Aug 66 treated  with
ace bandage, medication and a one day  duty  excusal.   Performance
records show the  applicant  continued  to  perform  duties  in  an
excellent  manner   without   physical   restrictions.    No   duty
restrictions were prescribed.  At the time  of  separation  medical
examination in Jun 68, the history of the right ankle fracture  was
recorded and the examining physician  wrote,  “Right  ankle  broken
1966 - No trouble since.”  He was medically cleared  for  continued
world-wide duty and discharged at the expiration  of  his  term  of
obligated service.

Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) documentation  indicates  that
after leaving the service, the applicant worked as  a  butcher  and
market manager.  Records report he underwent surgery on both ankles
in 1974 and experienced the development of  degenerative  arthritis
shown on x-rays in the early 1990s.  Applicant was granted  service
connected disability compensation  for  residuals  of  right  ankle
fracture effective 29 Jan 92,  with  a  compensable  rating  of  20
percent.  As of 23 Sep 03, applicant has a combined DVA  disability
rating of 90 percent.

The Military Disability Evaluation  System  (DES),  established  to
maintain a fit and vital fighting force, 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.  For an individual
to be considered unfit for military service there must be a medical
condition that prevents performance of any work  commensurate  with
rank and experience.

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 military service disability systems, operating  under
Title 10, and the DVA disability systems, operating under Title 38,
are  complementary  systems  not  intended   to   be   duplicative.
Operating  under  different  laws   with   a   different   purpose,
determinations made by the Department of Defense (DoD) under  Title
10 and the DVA under Title 38 are not binding on the other.

Review of service medical and personnel records confirms  that  the
applicant’s service related ankle  and  foot  conditions  were  not
unfitting for  continued  military  service  at  the  time  of  his
separation  and  did  not  warrant  evaluation  in  the  disability
evaluation system.  Although presumed to be service connected under
Title 38, diabetes and  its  complications  developing  many  years
after separation are also conditions that are not eligible for  Air
Force disability compensation.

BCMR Medical Consultant complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant disagrees with the advisory opinion.   He  explained  the
circumstances and events surrounding  his  injuries  and  treatment
during his military service.

He believes the impairments he has today are a direct result of the
poor and inadequate treatment he received during his active duty in
the Air Force.  The disease he suffers from is a direct  result  of
contact with herbicides in Vietnam.  His current illness (Diabetes)
has greatly increased his ankle and foot problems.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

___________________________________________________________________

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  the
case.  The applicant requests his honorable discharge be changed to
a disability retirement and that he be eligible for CRSC.  However,
we found no evidence which  would  lead  us  to  believe  that  the
applicant's separation or reason for separation were  in  error  or
contrary to the governing Air Force manuals.   The  laws  governing
CRSC criterion requires military members to have 20 years  or  more
years of active service.  Since the applicant completed  only  four
years  of  military  service  he   is   not   entitled   to   CRSC.
Additionally, while the applicant did experience  medical  problems
while on active  duty,  we  found  no  evidence  that  his  medical
conditions at the time of his  discharge  rendered  him  unfit  for
continued military service.  The applicant’s case has undergone  an
exhaustive review by the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  and  there  is
nothing in the  evidence  provided  by  the  applicant  that  would
overcome his assessment of the case.  Therefore, we agree with  the
recommendations and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to  sustain  his  burden
that he has suffered either an  error  or  an  injustice.   In  the
absence  of  persuasive  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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2004-03293 in Executive Session on 6 September 2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Member
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 4 Nov 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 11 Jul 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Jul 06.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair