RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00049
            INDEX CODE:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 November 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active  Duty,  be
corrected to show he was discharged in the grade of  staff  sergeant  (SSgt)
(E-5) versus  senior  airman  (SrA)  (E-4).  In  addition,  his  records  be
corrected to show he received a disability retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for  Separation,  and  a  message
from AFPC/DPPDS, indicates he is entitled to  disability  severance  pay  in
the grade of SSgt computed in accordance with Title 10  United  States  Code
(USC) 1212.  In addition, his disabilities warrant a  disability  rating  of
30% or higher.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his DD form  214,
AF Form 100, Physical  Evaluation  Board  documents,  and  civilian  medical
evaluation documents.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 22 September 1999, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  in
the rank of airman basic (E-1) at the age of 20 for a period of  six  years.
He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4)  effective
and with a date of rank of 22 March 2002.

On 8 August 2003, the applicant was  involved  in  a  motorcycle  collision,
sustaining multiple severe injuries to the left  knee  and  right  shoulder.
The applicant was referred into the disability evaluation  system  (DES)  in
the summer of 2005.  On 3 August  2005,  the  Informal  Physical  Evaluation
Board (IPEB) found the applicant unfit due to chronic left knee pain,  rated
ten percent, and recommended discharge with severance pay.  The  applicant’s
other conditions were not determined to be unfitting for continued  military
service.  The applicant disagreed with the IPEB  findings  and  requested  a
hearing with the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).   The  FPEB  found
the applicant unfit due  to  his  left  knee  condition,  adjudicated  a  20
percent rating, and recommended a disability discharge with  severance  pay.
The FPEB concurred  with  the  IPEB  in  concluding  the  applicant’s  other
conditions  were  not  unfitting  for  continued  military   service.    The
applicant disagreed with the FPEB and appealed to the Secretary of  the  Air
Force Personnel Council (SAFPC).  The SAFPC decision  memorandum,  dated  21
October 2005, indicates the council agreed with the FPEB  and  directed  the
applicant be disability discharged with severance pay due to his  left  knee
condition, rated at 20 percent.

The applicant was honorably discharged effective  2  December  2005  with  a
narrative reason for separation as disability, severance pay.  He  served  6
years, 2 months and 11 days on active duty.

The applicant was granted service connected disability compensation  through
the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for posttraumatic stress  disorder,
injury affecting knee extension and hip flexion,  digestive  condition,  and
lumbosacral or cervical strain for a combined service  connected  rating  of
50 percent.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial to change the rank on the applicant’s DD  Form
214.  DPPPWB states the applicant was selected for promotion to SSgt  during
cycle 04E5 (promotions effective September 2004 through  August  2005).   He
received  a  promotion  sequence  number  of  3024.0  which  incremented  on
1 November 2004.  However, since the  applicant  had  not  completed  Airmen
Leadership School (ALS) prior to his pin-on date, his promotion  was  placed
on hold pending completion of Professional  Military  Education  (PME).   In
accordance with AF Instruction 36-2502, paragraph 1.2, airmen  selected  for
promotion to the grade of SSgt, master sergeant, or chief  master  sergeant,
must complete in-residence PME before assuming these grades.  The  personnel
data system automatically withholds promotion for those who do not  complete
appropriate PME prior to the promotion effective date.

The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD defers to DPPPWB in addressing the applicant’s request  to  change
his grade to SSgt on his DD Form 214.  As a side note, DPPD states that  the
Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act amended Section 1212  of
Title 10 USC to authorize separation with severance  pay  in  the  grade  to
which a member would have been promoted, had it not been  for  the  physical
disability.  The applicant’s AF Form 100, clearly states he was entitled  to
severance pay in the grade of SSgt.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The BCMR Medical Consultant  is  of  the  opinion  that  no  change  in  the
applicant’s records is warranted.  The BCMR Medical Consultant  states  that
the preponderance of evidence does not support a change of records  to  show
an increase in the disability rating for  the  applicant’s  knee  condition.
The applicant’s other conditions were not separately unfitting at  the  time
of evaluation in the  disability  evaluation  system  and  did  not  warrant
separate ratings.

It is the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant’s  opinion  that  the  PEBs  and  SAFPC
properly concluded the applicant’s knee  condition  was  best  rated  at  20
percent.  Although the documentation considered by the  previous  boards  is
not available  for  review,  the  medical  documentation  submitted  by  the
applicant  leads  the  reviewer  to  conclude  that  the  applicant’s   knee
condition, based on the objective evidence, correlates  best  with  the  ten
percent rating, thus not supporting a change of records to show an  increase
in the rating for the knee.

The BCMR Medical Consultant states the fact the applicant has  been  granted
certain service connected disability rating from the DVA  does  not  entitle
him to Air Force disability compensation or a change  in  existing  military
disability ratings.

It is the BDMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that action and  disposition  in
this case are proper and equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends he was selected for promotion to  SSgt  during  cycle
04E5 with a sew-on date of 1 November 2004.  After sustaining injuries  from
his motorcycle collision, he was unable to attend ALS.  He  was  assured  by
his first sergeant and the ALS Commandant that he would be  able  to  attend
ALS when he was physically able.   Five  months  later,  following  approval
from his orthopedic surgeon and the ALS Commandant, he felt he was ready  to
attend ALS.  Subsequently, he was informed by his new  first  sergeant  that
he would be  unable  to  attend  ALS  due  to  squadron  policy.   He  later
discovered there was no such squadron policy.  Other  airmen  that  were  on
medical profile were able to attend ALS classes at  the  same  time  he  was
supposed to attend.

He feels his first sergeant and  squadron  commander  discriminated  against
him because of his physical  disability.   He  feels  that  because  of  his
physical impairment and his inability to work at the  same  level  as  other
airmen, he was denied the basic rights of all Air Force personnel.

A copy of the applicant’s rebuttal 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  error  or  injustice  warranting  changing   his   disability
discharge to a disability retirement.  We took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not  find  that
it supports a determination that  the  applicant  was  improperly  separated
from active duty in 2005.  The applicant has provided no evidence which,  in
our opinion, successfully refutes the assessment of his  case  by  the  BCMR
Medical Consultant.  Therefore, we agree  with  the  recommendation  of  the
BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his opinion as our findings in this  case.
 In view  of  the  above,  we  find  no  basis  to  favorably  consider  the
applicant’s request in regard to changing his record to reflect he  received
a disability retirement.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an injustice in regard to the applicant’s  request  to  correct
his discharge pay grade on his DD Form  214  to  reflect  SSgt.   While  the
applicant’s indicated pay grade of  SrA  is  not  incorrect,  the  applicant
contends he was unjustly precluded from completing Airman Leadership  School
(ALS) so that he could assume the grade of SSgt  after  being  selected  for
promotion during cycle 04E5.  The applicant’s main contention is that  after
a change of first sergeants in his unit,  a  commitment  from  his  previous
first sergeant to allow him to complete ALS after healing from his  injuries
was not honored.   Although  the  applicant  has  not  provided  independent
corroboration  of  his  contention,  we  find  his  explanation  of   events
plausible and choose to resolve any doubt we may have in his  favor.   While
we do not believe the applicant’s promotion should  be  retroactive  to  the
original pin on date, given that he was paid separation  pay  based  on  the
higher grade, we believe it would be appropriate  to  promote  him  one  day
prior to separation so that his DD Form 214 will reflect the grade of  SSgt.
 Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of  SSgt
(E-5) effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 17 April 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
                 Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member


All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-00049 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Feb 06.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 9 Feb 06.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 06.
     Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 28 May 06.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Feb 07.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 5 Feb 07.




                                  RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                  Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2006-00049




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that he was promoted to the
grade of staff sergeant (E-5) effective and with a date of rank of 1
December 2005.





  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency