RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01954
            INDEX CODE:  108.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 Dec 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to reflect she was medically retired.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was forced to put  in  for  retirement  or  be  eliminated.   Her  order
indicated she was physically disqualified for active duty.  If she had  been
given a medical retirement she  would  have  been  able  to  receive  better
treatment than what the Veterans Affairs offers.   Her  condition  that  may
have been used  to  justify  physical  disqualification  occurred  while  on
active duty status.

In support of her request, applicant  provided  a  copy  of  her  retirement
order and documentation associated with her disability rating decision.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  31
Jul 70.  She was released from active duty on 27 Nov 81.  On 4 Dec  81,  she
enlisted in the Air Force Reserve.  In  1984,  the  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA) granted service connected disability ratings  of  ten  percent
for atypical manic-depressive disorder and  ten  percent  for  chronic  back
pain.   According  to  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant,  a  review   of   the
applicant's medical records  indicates  in  1994,  she  was  diagnosed  with
breast cancer and underwent lumpectomy and  radiation  therapy.   During  an
evaluation  for  world  wide  duty  qualification  prompted  by  the  cancer
diagnosis, medical authorities became aware  of  her  psychiatric  diagnosis
and  treatment  and  in  accordance  with   medical   standards,   she   was
disqualified for continued military service.  Because she had over 20  years
of satisfactory service, on 30 Apr 96, she was relieved from her  assignment
and transferred to the Retired Reserve awaiting pay at age 60.

On 20 May 03, the DVA increased her service connected bipolar disorder  with
psychotic symptoms, anxiety  disorder,  psychotic  disorder,  and  cognitive
disorder evaluated with atypical manic depressive illness to 100 percent.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPM recommends denial.  DPM states the  applicant's  circumstances  did
not meet the requirements of Title 10, Section 201, to  be  eligible  for  a
medical retirement because her medically disqualifying condition  was  found
to not be service-connected.  She has not  provided  any  medical  documents
that might warrant reevaluation of her medically disqualifying condition  to
determine whether it was service-connected.

The DPM 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 28  Oct
05 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states the applicant was discharged  from  the  Air  Force  Reserve  due  to
medical disqualification for non-duty related breast cancer and  psychiatric
illness.  Although she was granted service connected DVA disability  ratings
for back pain and manic-depressive illness in 1984, she continued  to  serve
satisfactorily in the Air  Force  Reserve  accumulating  over  20  years  of
satisfactory service with entitlement to a Reserve Retirement.

The fact that the applicant has been granted  service  connected  disability
from the DVA does not entitle her  to  Air  Force  disability  compensation.
The military service disability system, operating under Title  10,  and  the
DVA disability system, operating under Title 38, are  complementary  systems
not intended to be duplicative, determinative or binding on  decisions  made
by the other.

The military disability evaluation system can by law under  Title  10,  only
offer compensation for those service  incurred  or  aggravated  diseases  of
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 and not based  on
future possibilities.  The mere presence of a disability does not qualify  a
member for disability evaluation.  There must be a  medical  condition  that
prevents performance of any work  commensurate  with  rank  and  experience.
Conditions that are not service incurred, including conditions that  existed
prior to service or hereditary or conditions that existed prior  to  service
(EPTS) that manifest after entering service, and that  are  not  permanently
aggravated  beyond  the  natural  progression  of  the  condition,  are  not
compensable or ratable.  Once an individual has  been  declared  unfit,  the
service secretaries are required by law to rate the condition based  on  the
degree of disability at the time of permanent disposition, even  though  the
condition may become better or worse.  For Reserve members  to  be  eligible
for military disability compensation,  the  unfitting  condition  must  have
been incurred or permanently aggravated beyond the  natural  progression  of
the condition in the line of duty while entitled to basic pay.

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  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.

Although she was diagnosed with a personality disorder while on active  duty
and reported symptoms of depressed  mood  at  the  time  of  her  separation
examination for which she did not  seek  medical  attention,  there  was  no
evidence her condition was unfitting for duty at  that  time  and  warranted
referral into the disability evaluation system.  There is  no  evidence  her
Reserve duties permanently  aggravated  her  condition  beyond  the  natural
course of the condition.  Her condition was rated at 10 percent by  the  DVA
upon separation and was not increased to 100 percent  until  5  years  after
discharge.

The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  provided  additional  information  under  two  separate  letters.
Applicant states that if  her  manic  depressive  condition  was  enough  to
warrant her not world-wide qualified then a medical retirement is more  than
justified.  A medical retirement would have made  her  eligible  for  medial
insurance and different types of treatment.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After careful review  of  the  applicant’s
submission, we found no evidence to indicate her  transfer  to  the  Retired
Reserve awaiting pay at age  60  was  inappropriate  or  unjust.   Applicant
contends her psychiatric condition was aggravated by her Air  Force  Reserve
service.  However, we do not find this argument sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the  rationale  expressed  by  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant.   We
believe it is interesting to note that although the applicant was  diagnosed
with personality disorder while on active  duty  and  reported  symptoms  of
depressed mood at the time of her separation examination, she did  not  seek
medical attention nor was there evidence her  condition  was  unfitting  for
duty at that time and warranted  referral  into  the  Air  Force  Disability
Evaluation System, which in our estimation, provides additional support  for
the Air Force assessment of her condition.  In view of the above and in  the
absence of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  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, we find no 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-2005-01954
in Executive Session on 21 September 2006, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
            Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
            Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2005-
01954 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 18 Jul 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 21 Aug 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Aug 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letters, Applicant, dated 17 Sep 06 and 23 Sep 06.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair