RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02597
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 FEBRUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be medically retired with a 50 percent disability.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her diagnosis of cystocele and rectocele should be reflected on the AF  Form
356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation  Board
(PEB), dated 9 Jan 02.

Although these conditions may not be unfitting directly,  the  residuals  of
urinary and  fecal  incontinence  are  unfitting.   As  such,  the  military
separation  board  was  required  to  rate  her  disability  based  on   the
underlying condition of cystocele and rectocele.  Her medical  board  report
and all other separation documents refer to her urinary incontinence as  the
basis for her discharge.

The Air Force Informal Physical  Evaluations  Board’s  (IPEB)  determination
that she be discharged from active service in the Air National Guard with  a
20 percent disability was  in  error  because  the  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA), “[u]sing the same medical records and  statements  less  than
six months later,” rated her disability at 50 percent.

The VA has determined that her urinary and fecal incontinence are  residuals
of cystocele and rectocele.  The AF Form 356 does not separate  the  urinary
and fecal incontinence; and rates only the symptom of urinary  incontinence,
while ignoring the underlying condition.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Washington Air National Guard (WA ANG)  on  6  Nov
93.

On 4 Dec 01, a medical  evaluation  board  (MEB)  diagnosed  applicant  with
stage II (mild) pelvic organ prolapse, dyspareunia, fecal  incontinence  and
mild urge incontinence and recommended referral to the IPEB.  On 9  Jan  02,
the IPEB reviewed the case and  recommended  discharge  with  severance  pay
with  a  20  percent  disability  rating  for  urinary   urge   incontinence
associated with fecal  incontinence  secondary  to  stage  II  pelvic  organ
prolapse, status post total  vaginal  hysterectomy.   Applicant  waived  her
right to appeal  this  finding  before  the  FPEB  and  concurred  with  the
findings of the IPEB on 25 Feb 02.  Her date of separation  was  established
as 8 Apr 02 and the discharge message was sent to her ANG unit.

On 8 Apr 02, applicant was  honorably  discharged  for  physical  disability
with severance pay, with a 20 percent disability.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, recommends denial  of
the applicant’s requests.  The preponderance of evidence  reflects  that  no
error or injustice occurred during the  disability  process.   In  addition,
service-connected medical  conditions  incurred,  but  not  found  unfitting
while still on active  duty,  are  not  compensated  under  Title  10,  USC;
however, under Title 38, USC, the DVA  may  compensate  veterans  for  these
conditions.  The DVA is chartered to  provide  continual  medical  care  for
veterans once they leave active duty.  Under Title  38,  USC,  the  DVA  may
increase or decrease a member’s disability rating based on  the  seriousness
of the medical  condition  throughout  his  or  her  life  span.   The  IPEB
reviewed the request and determined that these two  conditions,  in  and  of
themselves, are not  unfitting  conditions  and  therefore  would  not  have
increased the disability rating any higher than  the  20  percent  that  was
already awarded for her urinary urge incontinence.

The complete AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied.  They stated  there  is  no
legal or equitable basis to change the IPEB’s findings  in  this  case.   To
obtain relief, the applicant must show by a preponderance  of  the  evidence
there exists some error or injustice warranting  corrective  action  by  the
board.  The United States Claims Court has repeatedly defined  an  injustice
in the context of BCMR cases as  “treatment  by  military  authorities  that
shocks the sense of justice.”  The applicant’s  request  to  the  AFBCMR  is
primarily supported on her disability rating by the DVA  subsequent  to  her
discharge from the ANG.  Understanding that disability ratings  by  the  DVA
and the military services are made for different purposes is essential  when
evaluating cases such as the applicant’s.  The DVA  is  a  separate  Federal
agency with a different mission governed by  different  standards  than  the
Air Force and its decisions are not binding  upon  the  result  of  specific
injuries or combination of injuries.  The military services,  on  the  other
hand, determine to what extent a member has been rendered unfit  to  perform
the duties of his/her office, grade rank, or rating because  of  a  physical
disability.  Accordingly, the DVA’s rating is not controlling over  the  Air
Force and the DVA’s determination alone  is  insufficient  to  overcome  the
original finding by the IPEB.

The complete AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 Mar 07, copies of the Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  To date,  a  response  has
not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 opinion and recommendation of the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  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  Docket  Number      BC-2006-
02597 in Executive Session on 17 April 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:


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

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
02597 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 06.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 2 Feb 07.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 26 Feb 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Mar 07.





                                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                             Panel Chair