RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00667
                             INDEX CODE:  108.00
                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                                                   HEARING DESIRED:
YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  5 SEPTEMBER 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he received a permanent disability
retirement with a 100 percent disability rating.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since he got hurt  in  the  Air  Force,  he  should  get  100  percent
disability from the Air Force.

In support of his application the applicant submitted Veterans Affairs
(VA) medical records, private medical records, VA Disability  letters,
and a his mother’s statement.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  (RegAF)  on  14 November
2000 as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 2 May 2001, the applicant was seen at the  family  practice  clinic
for a complaint of left  testicular  pain  and  enlargement.   He  was
diagnosed with varicocoele.  He was referred to a civilian urologist.

On 21 May 2001, the applicant was seen by the urologist  and  reported
that he was previously diagnosed with a left varicocoele prior to  his
enlisting on active duty.

On 15 June 2001, the applicant underwent a  bilateral  variococeletomy
and developed mononucleosis within a week after his surgery.

On 23 July 2001, the applicant was seen by urologist with a  complaint
of groin pain with  movements  and  lifting.   Scrotal  elevation  was
recommended.

On 4 September 2001, the applicant reported to  his  family  physician
with a complaint of pain in his legs and pelvis following his surgery.

On 11 October 2001, the applicant was sent to Landstuhl  Army  Medical
Center and was diagnosed with eipididymitis and placed on antibiotics,
pain medications and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

On 4 January 2002, the applicant underwent an ultrasound which  showed
no abnormality.  He was seen by Physical Medicine  and  Rehabilitation
and they recommended Demerol for pain relief.

On 25 March 2002, the applicant reported to his family physician  that
he was experiencing pain while sitting.   The  applicant  on  10 April
2002 was prescribed Elavil for chronic pain.

On 3 May 2002, the applicant was seen by a civilian urologist and  was
diagnosed with orchalgia with a possible low-grade prostatitis and was
prescribed antibiotics, warm sitz baths, and scrotal support.

The applicant was seen at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center  (WRAMC)
Urology, Pain Management and Psychiatric Clinic.  A nerve block in the
scrotal region was attempted but it  did  not  alleviate  any  of  the
applicant’s pain.  The applicant was evaluated by a  psychiatrist  who
deferred a diagnosis of personality disorder.   The  applicant  saw  a
pain management specialist who initiated a regimen of  anti-depressant
for chronic pain management.  On 4 June 2002, the applicant  underwent
an epidural steroid injection and on 6  June  2002,  a  genito-femoral
nerve block was performed without any  pain  resolution.   On  18 June
2002, the applicant had an ultrasound of the testicles and  a  MRI  of
the lumbar spine and the  results  were  normal.   The  applicant  was
prescribed various pain management regimens, without success.

On 16 August 2002, the applicant met a Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB)
who referred his case to the Informal Physical Evaluation (FPEB).

On 4 September 2002, IPEB recommended the applicant be discharged with
severance pay with a 10 percent disability rating.

The applicant was  seen  again  by  the  Air  Force  psychologist  who
concluded the applicant has psychological symptoms  affecting  chronic
testicular based on depressed mood.

The applicant appealed his case  to  the  Formal  Physical  Evaluation
Board (FPEB) who on 10  October  2002  concurred  with  the  IPEB  and
recommended a discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of
10 percent.  The applicant rebutted  the  findings  of  the  FPEB  and
requested a neurology consult.  The  neurology  consultation  was  not
deemed necessary by the FPEB.

On 16 December 2002, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel  Council
(SAFPC) directed the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a
disability rating of 10 percent.

On 3 March 2003, the applicant was honorably discharged with severance
pay.  He served 2 years, 3 months and 20 days of active service.

On 25 October 2004, the DVA assigned the  applicant  a  permanent  100
percent unemployability evaluation for his service disability with  an
overall disability rating of 80 percent.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in  the
applicant’s records is warranted.  The medical consultant states  that
although the applicant’s varicocoele existed prior to  service  (EPTS)
it was not noted as a  condition  that  EPTS  by  the  MEB  and  IPEB.
However, the MEB assigned service aggravation because the  applicant’s
condition worsened after surgery while he was  on  active  duty.   The
applicant’s mental health condition had not completely evolved at  the
time of his discharge into a separate disability entity; and therefore
was not compensable.  No specific conclusion has been  established  to
the applicant’s  medical  condition  due  to  the  lack  of  objective
evidence to support any definitive diagnosis.  It was determined by  a
preponderance of evidence  that  the  applicant’s  record  supports  a
disability rating of 10 percent, as originally adjudicated.  There  is
no evidence to support a higher rating at the time of the  applicant’s
separation.  His case was properly evaluated, appropriately rated  and
received full consideration  under  the  applicable  directives.   The
action  and  disposition  in  this  case  are  proper  and   equitable
reflecting compliance wit Air Force directives that implement the law.

The military service disability systems, operating under Title 10, and
the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability system,  operating
under  Title  38,  are  complementary  systems  not  intended  to   be
duplicative. Operating under different laws with a different  purpose,
independent decisions/determinations made by the DOD  under  Title  10
and the DVA under  Title  38  are  not  determinative  or  binding  on
decisions made by the other. By law,
payment of DVA disability compensation and military pay is prohibited

AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

On 5 April 2007, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 waive the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the
AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or
an injustice.  The applicant’s varicocoele condition existed prior  to
him entering military service.  His mental health  condition  was  not
considered unfitting because it had not completely evolved at the time
of his  discharge  and  therefore,  was  not  considered  compensable.
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  issue(s)   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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-00667 in Executive Session on 10 May 2007, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                       Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Dec 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR, Medical Consultant,  dated  12  Dec
05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Dec 05.




                             MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                             Panel Chair