RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03604
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00
      XXXXXXX                           COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 May 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her administrative discharge should be changed to a medical  discharge,  and
all debts owed by her be relinquished.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has awarded  her  a  service-
connected disability rating of 40%,  she  should  have  received  a  medical
discharge from the Air Force.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  25
February 1998 for  a  period  of  four  years.   On  26 February  2002,  she
reenlisted for a period of six  years.   She  progressed  to  the  grade  of
senior airman (E-4).

On 23 August 2002, she was notified of her commander’s intent  to  recommend
her  administrative  discharge  for  fraudulent  entry.   Specifically,  for
deliberately concealing the fact that her body  weight  exceed  her  maximum
allowable weight, procure herself to be enlisted as  a  senior  airman,  and
did  thereafter,  receive  pay  and  allowances  under  the  enlistment   so
procured.  In addition, she wrongfully solicited  another  airman  to,  with
intent to deceive, sign an official record that she  met  Air  Force  weight
standards for purposes of reenlistment, which was totally  false  and  known
to  be  false,  for  which  she  received  an  Article  15  with  punishment
consisting  of  reduction  to  the  grade  of   airman   first   class   and
establishment of an Unfavorable Information File (UIF).  The commander  also
indicated  the  following  derogatory   information   during   her   current
enlistment:

      a.    On or about 3 April 2002, she assaulted her spouse for which she
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 20 May 2002 which was placed in  her
UIF.


      b.    On or about 9 June 2002, with intent to deceive,  make  a  false
statement that she was a deployment officer  and  informed  them  that  they
would be leaving on a C-5 the next day for deployment, which  statement  was
totally false, and was known to be false, for  which  she  received  another
LOR and was placed on the Control Roster.


The commander also noted that during her previous enlistment, she  had  four
instances of her failing to go at  the  time  prescribed  to  her  appointed
place of duty, for which she received a  Letter  of  Counseling,  two  LORs,
UIF, and an Article 15 with punishment consisting  of  suspended  forfeiture
of $537.90 of pay per month for 2 months, 30  days  of  extra  duty,  and  a
reprimand.  She waived her right to consult counsel and  submit  matters  in
her own behalf.  The action was found legally sufficient  and  was  approved
by the discharge authority.

On 6 September 2002, she was discharged under the provisions of  AFR-36-3208
(Fraudulent Entry into Military  Service),  with  service  characterized  as
general (under honorable conditions).  She completed 4 years, 6 months,  and
12 days of active service, with 6 months  and  26  days  of  prior  inactive
service.

On 8 August 2006, the  DVA  awarded  her  a  combined  compensable  service-
connected   disability   rating   of    40    percent    (20    percent    -
spondylosis/spondylolisthesis, 20 percent - peptic ulcer disease, 0  percent
migraine headaches, and 0 percent - hypertension.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:




The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the  records
is warranted, and states, in part, that there is no  medical  evidence  that
the events resulting in her administrative discharge were in any way  caused
by any of her listed medical conditions.  The conditions she  references  do
not rise to the level of disqualification for  continued  military  service.
During her August 2002 Preventive Health  Assessment  (PHA)  and  separation
physical she was found  fit  for  worldwide  duty.   Further,  she  has  not
overcome the presumption of fitness since there is no evidence  that  during
the 12 months prior to her discharge her performance was unsatisfactory.



The applicant may confuse the military Disability  Evaluation  System  (DES)
with the  rating  decision  rendered  by  the  DVA.   The  military  DES  is
established to maintain a  fit  and  vital  force  and  can  compensate  for
unfitting conditions which render a member unable to perform their  military
duties, and then only to the degree of severity at the time  of  separation.
Although the Air Force is required to rate disabilities in  accordance  with
the DVA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, the DVA operates under  a  totally
separate system with a different statutory basis.  The  DVA  rates  for  any
and all service-connected conditions, to  the  degree  they  interfere  with
future employability, without consideration of fitness.   Whereas,  the  Air
Force rates a member's disability based on the degree  of  severity  at  the
time of separation.  In the applicant’s case, her medical  conditions  while
on active duty were not unfitting for continued  military  service  and  did
not warrant evaluation in the disability system.


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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  1  July
2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However, 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 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  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, 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-2006-03604
in Executive Session on 11 September 2007, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
                       Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memo, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 May 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jun 07.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair