RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01041
            INDEX CODE:  108.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 SEP 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge with severance pay be changed  to  reflect  he  was  medically
retired.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His back injury was incurred while lifting a stanchion block used to  cordon
off an alert B-52 under emergency maintenance.  He was  eventually  provided
a medical board which directed he be returned  to  duty.   He  was  given  a
second medical board which directed he be  discharged  with  severance  pay.
At the time he was not informed of any recourse he could have taken  and  he
was not provided an opportunity to fight the medical  board  findings.   The
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated his condition at the time as  30%
disabling.  In 1999 he was admitted to the Veterans Affairs  Medical  Center
(VAMC) for heart problems.  After his release from the VAMC he reviewed  his
military records and found his preliminary examination for  the  AF  Academy
dated 1 Mar 62.  At the time he was told of a condition with his  left  eye.
He now realizes the real problem was  his  heart,  not  his  eye.   The  DVA
awarded service-connection for his heart problem in 2004.

In support of his request, applicant provided personal  statements,  a  copy
of his DD Form 214, and documentation extracted from his medical records.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air  Force  on  7
Oct 60.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant.

On 16  Feb  66,  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  convened,  considered
applicant's diagnosis of asthma, and recommended  he  be  returned  to  duty
with a waiver.  On 8 Mar 66, the recommendation  was  accepted  and  he  was
returned to duty.   On  5  Jun  72,  an  MEB  convened  and  considered  his
diagnosis of chronic and recurrent lumbar pain and recommend he be  returned
to duty.  On 30 Jun 72, the USAF Physical Evaluation  Board  (PEB)  reviewed
the record of proceedings of the MEB and  found  him  unfit  for  world-wide
duty and  recommended  discharge  with  severance  pay  with  a  compensable
percentage of 10 percent.  The applicant concurred  with  the  findings  and
recommended disposition of the PEB.  On 6 Jul 72, the Secretary of  the  Air
Force  Personnel  Council  approved  the  recommendation  and  directed  his
discharge with severance pay. He was discharged on 21 Jul 72  after  serving
11 years, 9 months and 15 days on active duty.

On 19 Dec 72, the DVA awarded  the  applicant  service  connection  for  his
lumbosacral strain, rated at 20  percent  and  residuals  of  a  compression
fracture, rated at 10 percent for a combined rating of 30 percent.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states his case was properly evaluated,  appropriately  rated  and  received
full  consideration  under  applicable  directives.   He  was  afforded  the
opportunity to  appeal  his  disability  determination  but  declined.   His
lumbar back pain was unfitting for military service and was  properly  rated
at the time and there is no evidence  in  his  service  medical  records  to
support a higher rating at the time  of  discharge.   His  other  conditions
noted during service were conditions that did not  interfere  with  military
service and did not warrant  disability  evaluation  or  compensation.   The
fact that the DVA rated his  seventh  thoriacic  vertebral  fracture  at  10
percent immediately following  separation  is  not  evidence  of  Air  Force
error.  This condition was initially  noted  as  an  incidental  finding  in
1970, was asymptomatic and did not interfere  with  performance  of  duties.
His electrocardiogram abnormalities and  symptoms  that  in  retrospect  may
have been associated with that abnormality were not unfitting  for  military
service and did not warrant evaluation in the Disability Evaluation System.

The complete Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a response to the Air Force evaluation which is  appended
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 BCMR Medical Consultant that it appears he was  properly  evaluated
through the disability evaluation system at the time.  We  feel  constrained
to note that by law. The services assign  disability  rating  based  on  the
degree of impairment of performance of duties at  the  time  of  disposition
while the DVA assigns ratings based on social and  industrial  adaptability.
Which  will  explain  the   difference   between   the   assigned   ratings.
Accordingly,  absent  persuasive  evidence   that   applicant's   disability
processing and the final disposition of his case were in error  or  contrary
to the provisions of the  governing  instruction,  or  that  he  was  denied
rights to which he was entitled, 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-2005-
01041 in Executive Session on 8 Aug 06, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 6 Jul 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jul 06.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair