RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01736
            INDEX CODE: 110.00
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE
                                   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be changed to reflect that he was medically retired rather than
discharged with disability severance pay.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was injured in a motor vehicle accident while assigned  in  Panama.   He
was not allowed to reenlist and believes he was discharged incorrectly.  He
currently receives 80 percent disability compensation from  the  Department
of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and he is  being  evaluated  for  neck  and  back
injuries resulting from the accident.

In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  submits  email  communiqué,
documentation associated with his DVA rating  decision,  his  DD  Form  214
Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  From  Active  Duty,  a  Disability
Severance Pay Estimate, his Line of Duty Determination, and a copy  of  his
separation orders.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered active duty on 29 March 1974.

A review of his medical records show that on 8 March 1993, he was  involved
in a motor vehicle accident and injured his neck.

The pertinent history associated with his injuries  can  be  found  in  the
evaluation provided by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit C.

On 25 March 1997, he was honorably discharged with  severance  pay  with  a
compensable rating of 20 percent, in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).

On 23 December 1997, the DVA awarded him a 10 percent disability rating for
low back  pain  with  limitation  of  motion,  10  percent  disability  for
arthritis, and 10 percent for tinnitus.  He was denied  service  connection
for  a  right  shoulder  condition.   He  was  awarded  zero  percent   for
musculoskeletal headaches.  On 9 February  2004,  the  DVA  awarded  him  a
combined compensable rating of 80 percent.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states the applicant was discharged with severance pay  with  a  disability
rating of 20 percent.  The Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES)  by
law only compensates those medical conditions that were  disabling  at  the
time of discharge.  In this case, the applicant's condition was  considered
unfitting for the rigors of further military service but presented  only  a
minor disruption in his ability to be gainfully employed  in  the  civilian
sector.  Once a disability  rating  is  finalized,  it  cannot  be  changed
despite any further progression of the applicant's disease.  On  the  other
hand, the DVA is authorized to reevaluate  an  applicant's  disability  and
assign a different rating as a condition changes over the years.
The Medical Examiner notes the  original  DVA  disability  rating  for  the
applicant's  neck  and  low  back  pain,  awarded  nine  months  after  his
discharge, was the same rating he received from the  MDES.   The  applicant
was also awarded a  10  percent  rating  for  tinnitus  by  the  DVA.   The
applicant's tinnitus was not considered a disabling condition  by  the  Air
Force.  The preponderance of evidence of the record shows  the  applicant's
neck and low back condition  were  appropriately  assessed  and  evaluated.
Actions and dispositions in this case are proper and  equitable  reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The complete Medical Consultant evaluation, with attachments, is at exhibit
C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states after serving on active duty in the Marines  for  four
years, he joined the Army Reserves for about a year  and  the  records  for
that period were lost.  He switched from the Army Reserves directly to  the
USAFR and had every intention of staying until retirement.  He was hurt  in
Panama which is documented.  At reenlistment time  (1997-physical)  he  was
literally sent home and had to write his congressman to get help  from  the
Air Force.  He did not understand what was happening to him at the time  of
release (with severance pay).  He believes  he  would  have  wanted  to  be
medically retired.  When he was 17, he joined the Marines and continued  in
the Reserves until being sent home.  The way he was released is  incorrect;
he is a proud American and was given a raw deal as a young staff  sergeant.
He wants the military privileges he should have  been  given  when  he  was
released from service.

The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of  the  evidence
of  record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  by  his
assertions, that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  We agree
with the opinion of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale  as
basis for our conclusion that the applicant's case  was  properly  assessed
and evaluated under the applicable directives.  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-2007-
01736 in Executive Session on 27 November 2007, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
                 Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member






The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number  BC-
2007-01736 was considered:

 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 May 2007, w/atchs.
 Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
 Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 5 October 2007 w/atch.

 Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 October 2007.
 Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 October 2007.





            THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
            Chair