RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00557
            INDEX CODE: 110.00
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE

                                   HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 AUG 07

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His records be changed to reflect permanent disability retirement  with
a minimum disability rating of 50 percent.

2.  His records be changed to reflect the following disabling  ailments  in
his disability rating:  lumbar disk degeneration (arthritis),  soft  tissue
damage, carpal tunnel syndrome, sexual dysfunction, and  his  torn  rotator
cuff.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

All his disabling criteria was not included for evaluation,  therefore,  he
only received 20 percent disability.  The letter he wrote  to  the  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) was received but the MEB disregarded his letter.  He
has a 20-year letter of entitlements  granted  by  the  Air  Force  and  he
understands he is still eligible for the  entitlements.   The  contract  he
signed 21 Dec 04 does not state his retirement benefits would be taken away
from him and his family. He  believes  he  served  proudly  and  honorably;
however, the Air Force has made a bad mistake.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal letter, a  copy
of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active  Duty;
Letter of Acceptance; AF IMT 100, Request and Authorization for Separation;
excerpts from his medical records and copies of his military citations  and
awards.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:


A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 20 Sep  04  and  referred  his
case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  On  1  Nov  04,  the
IPEB found him unfit for further military service based on a  diagnosis  of
cervical myelopathy due to  multilevel  compressive  disc  protrusions  and
lumbar myelopathy disc protrusions with clinical features of  radiculopathy
and recommended a combined compensable rating of 20%.   On  9  Nov  04  the
applicant agreed with the findings of the IPEB.  On 16  Jan  2005,  he  was
separated from the Air Force in the grade of master sergeant.  He served  a
total of 20 years, 10 months and 23 days on satisfactory service.

Because the applicant had over 20 years  of  satisfactory  service  he  was
provided the option of electing to be discharged with severance pay  or  to
be placed on the Reserve Retired list awaiting pay at age 60.   On  21  Dec
04, he signed a statement electing discharge with severance pay.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states the applicant was disability discharged with severance  pay  with  a
disability rating of 20 percent for cervical myelopathy due  to  multilevel
compressive disc protrusions and lumbar myelopathy  disc  protrusions  with
clinical features of radiculopathy.   The  Military  Disability  Evaluation
System, established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by  law
under Title 10, only offer compensation for those disease or injuries which
specifically render a member unfit for continued active  service  and  were
the cause for terminaton of their career, and then only for the  degree  of
impairment present a the time  of  separation.   The  mere  presense  of  a
medical condition does not qualify a member for future possibilities.   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 or precludes assignment to military duties.  Conditions
that are not service incurred and are not permanently aggravated beyond the
natural course of the conditions are not compensable or ratable.   Once  an
individual has been declared unfit, the Service Secretaries are required by
law to rate the conditions based on the degree of disability at the time of
permanent disposition and  not  future  events.  No  change  in  disability
ratings can occur after permanent disposition, even  though  the  condition
may become better or worse.  The applicant expressed concern that  not  all
of his conditions were addressed by the  Physical  Evaluation  Board.   The
preponderance of evidence available in the medical  records  indicates  his
carpal  tunnel  syndrome  was  not  unfitting.   The   applicant’s   sexual
dysfunction would not be considered disabling  for  military  service,  and
hence would not be compensable through the  Disability  Evaluation  System.
His torn rotator cuff was identified shortly before his discharge from  the
Air Force, but  treatment  was  declined  at  that  time  and  it  did  not
independently  cause  his  unfitting  condition.  Once  treatment  for  the
shoulder condition was completed after his  discharge,  it  was  no  longer
permanently disabling or unfitting.  His claim of soft  tissue  damage  was
considered part of his cervical and lumbar spine conditions.  Independently
rating soft tissue damage, arthritic joint disease  and  degenerative  disk
disease of the same region is considered  pyramiding  and  is  specifically
prohibited.  At the time of his discharge, the cervical  and  lumbar  spine
conditions were the only conditions felt to be  unfitting.   Disability  of
the spine is rated on the functionally of the neck and lumbar spine, not by
the number or size of the bulging disks.  Finding a  herniated  disk  on  a
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in a service member with  back  pain  does
not necessarily imply the herniated disk is the primary cause of the  pain.
On review of service medical records, the range of motion in  the  cervical
and lumbar spine best correlates to a 10 percent disability rating for each
at the time of discharge, using the Veterans  Administrative  Schedule  for
Rating Disabilities (VASRD).  Since there were no  significant  periods  of
incapacitation, the use of the VASRD to calculate the level  of  disability
based on incapacitating episodes is unlikely to result in a more  favorable
rating.  The Medical Consultant opines that the preponderance  of  evidence
indicates a disability rating of  20  percent  as  originally  adjudicated.
There is no evidence to support a higher rating at the time of  separation.
The  applicants  case  was  properly  evaluated,  appropriately  rated  and
received full consideration under the applicable  directives.  Actions  and
dispositions  in  this  case  are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting   the
compliance with the Air Force directives that implement the law.

The complete Medical Consultant evaluation is at exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states his shoulder was not correctly diagnosed; as a result,
he was not afforded the opportunity to claim the injury at the time of  his
discharge.  He complained of the pain in his shoulder for  approximately  a
year after the accident.  He was told the disc protrusion in  the  cervical
area was sitting on a nerve that  extends  at  the  area  of  his  shoulder
causing pain; therefore, the pain in his shoulder was diagnosed as a result
of the cervical disc protrusion.  It was not for a year (26 Aug  04)  later
when a MRI of the shoulder was performed.  The MRI reported a small partial
thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon or "torn rotator cuff".  He  was
referred to  another  doctor  who  specializes  in  shoulders;  the  doctor
reviewed the MRI and prescribed home therapy.  On 16  Nov  04,  the  doctor
indicated the rotator cuff injury was only repairable by surgery.   Therapy
was attempted; however, so much time had passed and the wounds  had  healed
incorrectly and the tendons in his shoulders  have  become  misaligned  and
inflamed causing increased pain and discomfort.  He states  he  did  refuse
the injection because it was a temporary fix and a painful waste  of  time.
Surgery was the only sensible option; however, the question was when.   The
applicant indicated the reason his surgery took so long to be scheduled and
performed was the neurosurgeon at Wright Paterson AFB advised he could  not
make a decision without a full set of MRI's to include his shoulder. On  30
Aug 04, the same neurosurgeon concluded the applicants military career  was
over and his findings would go to the MEB/PEB (Physical Evaluation  Board).
On 9 Nov 04, he was advised of  the  findings  and  told  a  discharge  was
imminent.  On the last day of his medical continuation order he was advised
his enlistment was being extended until 16 Jan 05.  In the interim, he  had
to notify his job of his return, build up time off  accruals  in  order  to
have surgery and recover time.  He believes it was unfair he  was  kept  on
orders for so long without the opportunity to have the surgery.  He  states
the  military  did  not  pay  for  his  medical   procedure,   test,   MRI,
prescriptions or any other  medical  related  issues  resulting  from  this
accident.  In addition, he served his country with  honor  and  valor.   He
believes after twenty  years  of  honorable  service  and  because  of  the
misevaluation of his shoulder, his situation could be ratified by  allowing
10 more percent disability for his shoulder.  This  would  give  him  a  30
percent disability and ultimately allow him an  Identification  Card  (ID),
which he believes he rightly deserves.

His complete response is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of  the  evidence
of record and applicant’s submission, we find no evidence of  an  error  in
this case and are not persuaded by his assertions, that  he  has  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  We are  not  persuaded  by  the  evidence
presented that his medical conditions were improperly rated or evaluated at
the time of final disposition.  We agree with the opinion recommendation of
the BCMR Medical Consultant and  adopt  his  rationale  as  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant's case was properly evaluated,  appropriately
rated and that he received full and fair consideration under the applicable
directives.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no compelling basis upon which to favorably consider 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-2006-
00557 in Executive Session on 25 April 07, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
            Mr.  Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
            Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number  BC-
2006-00557 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Feb 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Medical Consultant Letter, dated 13 Mar 07.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Mar 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Mar 07, w/atchs.




            CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
            Panel Chair