RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00253
                                             INDEX CODE:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  29 February 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given the opportunity to appeal the decision of the Informal  Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB) that he be removed  from  the  Temporary  Disability
Retired List (TDRL) in that he is still being  seen  at  the  Department  of
Veterans Administration (DVA) for service connected medical problems.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged without warning and never received a letter giving  him  a
chance to appeal the IPEB decision.

He did not receive the IPEB findings notification and  election  form  dated
27 June 2006.

In support of his appeal, applicant has provided copies of his DD Form  214,
DAF SO-ACD-01132, dated 8 August  2006,  removing  him  from  the  TDRL  and
discharging him without entitlement to disability severance pay, and  an  AF
Form 618, Medical Board Report, dated 3 June 2003.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 5 April 2000  and  served  as  an
electrical systems apprentice.  After three  years,  four  months,  and  two
days, he was released from active duty and placed on the TDRL  on  6  August
2003 due  to  pure  red  cell  aplasia  associated  with  hemolytic  anemia,
complicated by iatrogenic Cushing syndrome  and  iron  overload  from  blood
transfusions.   At  the  time  of  initial  placement  on  the   TDRL,   his
hematologic condition was in  remission  on  a  low  dose  of  azathioprine.
Shortly after placement on the TDRL, steroid treatment was discontinued.

After three years on the TDRL, his hematologic condition  was  in  remission
off of immunosuppressive medication, his Cushing syndrome had resolved,  and
the iron overload was fully  treated  without  evidence  of  residual  organ
impairment.  He felt well, except for some fatigue and low  back  pain,  and
was  attending  college.   In  June  2006,  the  IPEB  found  him  fit   and
recommended removal from the TDRL, allowing  him  the  option  to  elect  to
return to active duty if he desired.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends  denial.   On  27  June  2006,  they  mailed  the  IPEB
findings to the applicant for his review, along with an  election  statement
and return envelope.  The letter  instructed  him  to  return  the  election
statement to them by 22 July 2006, or it would be understood he agreed  with
the recommendation of the  IPEB.   He  did  not  return  the  form  and,  in
accordance with policy, was presumed to have concurred.  On  8 August  2006,
orders for removal from the TDRL and discharge  were  issued.   Although  he
claims he did not receive the IPEB recommendation dated 27  June  2006,  all
of the correspondence mailed to him, as well as travel orders  for  both  of
his TDRL reevaluation exams, were sent  to  the  address  he  provided  upon
discharge from active duty, which is also the address he cites  in  box  11a
on his DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Records.

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.   The  Military  Disability
Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit  and  vital  fighting
force, can, by law  under  Title  10,  only  offer  compensation  for  those
diseases or injuries which specifically render a member unfit for  continued
active service or were the cause for termination of their career,  and  then
only for the degree of impairment present at the time  of  separation.   The
mere presence  of  a  medical  condition  does  not  qualify  a  member  for
disability evaluation.   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.   Once  an
individual has been declared unfit, the Service Secretaries are required  by
law to rate the condition based upon the degree of disability  at  the  time
of  permanent  disposition,  and  not  on  future  events.   No  change   in
disability ratings can occur after permanent disposition,  even  though  the
condition may become better or worse.

The DVA operates under a different set of laws (Title 38)  and  specifically
addresses  long  term  medical  care,  social   support,   and   educational
assistance.  The DVA is chartered to offer  compensation  and  care  to  all
eligible veterans for  any  service  connected  disease  or  injury  without
regard to whether it was unfitting for continued military service.  The  DVA
is also empowered to reevaluate veterans periodically  for  the  purpose  of
changing their disability awards if their level of  impairment  varies  over
time.  Thus, the two systems represent  a  continuum  of  medical  care  and
disability compensation that starts with entry on active duty and  continues
for the life of the veteran.

The military service disability systems, operating under Title 10,  and  the
DVA disability systems, 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.  The  mere  fact  that  the  DVA  may  grant
certain  service  connected  compensation   ratings   does   not   establish
eligibility for similar actions from the Air Force.  By law, payment  of  VA
disability compensation and military disability pay  for  the  same  medical
condition or disability  is  prohibited;  thus,  any  Air  Force  disability
severance pay received by the applicant would be offset  dollar  for  dollar
from any VA disability pay.

Based upon the preponderance of the medical evidence of the  record,  it  is
likely that had the applicant appealed the decision of the IPEB,  subsequent
boards would have upheld the decision of the IPEB.   If  the  appeal  boards
had disagreed with the IPEB and found the applicant unfit, the  most  likely
outcome would have  been  discharge  with  severance  pay.   Pure  red  cell
aplasia in remission off of medications would warrant a zero percent  rating
under the guidance in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities.   Action  and
disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance  with  Air  Force
directives which implement the law.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 23 March 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.   However,  as  of
this date, no response has been received by this office.

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Advisor evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant on 2  May  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 timely filed.

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 opinions and recommendations 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.
Although he claims he did not receive the IPEB recommendation  and  election
statement dated 27 June 2006, all of the correspondence mailed  to  him,  as
well as travel orders for both of his TDRL reevaluation exams, were sent  to
the address he provided upon discharge from active duty, which is  also  the
address he cites in this application.  The fact he may  still  be  receiving
treatment from the DVA for service  connected  medical  problems  is  not  a
basis for appealing his IPEB findings, as no change  in  disability  ratings
can occur after permanent disposition, even though the condition may  become
better or worse.  The fact that the  DVA,  operating  under  Title  38,  may
grant certain service connected compensation/treatment  does  not  establish
eligibility for similar actions from the Air Force,  operating  under  Title
10, as they are complementary systems not intended to be  duplicative,   The
DVA is chartered to offer compensation and care  to  all  eligible  veterans
for any service connected disease or injury without  regard  to  whether  it
was  unfitting  for  continued  military  service,  whereas   the   Military
Disability Evaluation System can only offer compensation for those  diseases
or injuries which specifically render a member unfit  for  continued  active
service or were the cause for termination of their  career,  and  then  only
for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation.   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-2007-00253
in Executive Session on 20 June 1977, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
                       Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 9 Mar 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated 28 Apr 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Mar 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 May 07.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair