RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03820
            INDEX NUMBER:  108.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 Jul 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted medical disability retirement.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While in the Air Force, he received extensive treatments and  numerous
x-rays at several military medical facilities.  An examination  on  29
Mar 67 revealed a misalignment of the cervical area of his spine.  The
Air Force decision not to consider this service connected  injury  and
to discharge him for disability with severance pay with  a  rating  of
10% is an example of “gross negligence and medical incompetence.”

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides an extract  from  his
medical  records,  copies  of  paperwork  related  to  his  disability
evaluation, and a copy of his Social Security  Earnings  statement  to
show how his injury has impacted his earning capacity.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 9  Oct  62.   He
was referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) sometime in 1966 due
to chronic headaches.  On 9 Jan 67, the PEB found the applicant  unfit
for continued military service  and  recommended  his  discharge  with
severance pay based on a 10% disability rating.  On  10  Jan  67,  the
applicant  indicated  on  the  AF  Form  1180,  “Action  on   Physical
Evaluation  Board  Findings  and  Recommended  Disposition,”  that  he
concurred with the findings  and  recommendations  of  the  PEB.   The
applicant was discharged on     31 Jan 67 with severance pay.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.  The applicant now contends that the PEB did not  consider  a
neck injury he incurred during military  service,  which  should  have
been rated and  compensated  separately  and  resulted  in  his  being
disability retired.  A review of available service medical records and
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records for several  years  after
the applicant’s separation fails to reveal evidence of  an  in-service
neck injury.

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.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the  applicant  states  he  is  requesting  that  his
complete medical service  record  be  obtained  as  indicated  in  his
initial request.   He  further  states  that  “any  decision  rendered
without the inclusion of these records will be invalid and unjust.”

The applicant’s complete response is at 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 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;
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.  Additionally, we note  the  applicant’s  request  that  we
obtain his complete medical record.  However, this Board is  not  able
or responsible  to  obtain  evidence  beyond  that  submitted  by  the
applicant or available in accessible Air Force records.  Therefore, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 Docket  Number  BC-2004-
03820 in Executive Session on 21 December 2005, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
      Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Nov 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 28 Oct 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Dec 05.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair