RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03077
            INDEX NUMBER:  145.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be  corrected  to  reflect  he  was  medically  retired  with  a
disability rating greater than 60 percent.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1. He was retired without consideration  of  the  most  serious  compensable
condition  that  he  incurred  on  active   duty,   e.g.,   arteriosclerotic
configuration of the heart and thoracic aorta.

2. The Air Force diagnosed  his  heart  disease  in  December  1975  and  it
continued to be more serious  than  his  shoulder,  knee,  ankle  and  other
disabilities for which he was eventually medically discharged, with a  total
rating of 60 percent.

3. He was unaware of the  seriousness  of  his  heart  condition  until  the
Department of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  revealed  it  to  him  and  he  was
subsequently awarded a 100 percent disability rating.

In support of his request, the applicant submits  a  letter  from  the  DVA,
dated 19 Mar 04, DD  Form  214,  Report  of  Separation  from  Active  Duty,
excerpts from his medical records, and excerpts from his DVA records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 Aug 54, for a term  of
four years, and  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant.  On 15 Dec 75, he underwent a retirement physical  and  was  found
qualified for worldwide service or retirement.  On 1 Apr 76, he was  retired
under the provisions of AFM 35-7, Service  Retirements,  with  an  honorable
discharge characterization and issued a separation designator  code  of  RBD
“Sufficient Service for Retirement.”  He  served  a  total  of  21 years,  7
months and 20 days active duty service.

He was initially rated as 10 percent  service-connected  disability  by  the
DVA effective 1 Apr 76, for post operative  residual  left  ankle  fracture,
scar right forehead, cephalic, and a tension type  hemorrhoidectomy.  On  13
Oct 04, the DVA subsequently increased his disability rating to 100  percent
for Coronary Artery disease with mild Renal Failure, effective 26 May 04.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial and states no  change  in  the
record is warranted.  The applicant had a systemic arteriosclerotic  disease
process that has progressively worsened since the  date  of  his  retirement
from military service.  Although service connection has been established  by
the DVA and the applicant has reportedly been awarded  a  disability  rating
of  100  percent,  there  is  no   compelling   evidence   the   applicant’s
arteriosclerotic  cardiovascular  disease   (ASCVD)   prevented   him   from
reasonably performing the duties of  his  office,  grade,  rank  and  rating
during  the  period  of  his  military  service  and  at  the  time  of  his
retirement.   Additionally,  while  there  was  indeed  early   radiographic
evidence of an arteriosclerotic configuration of the applicant’s  heart  and
thoracic aorta near the time of his retirement, these findings  alone  would
not have justified a finding of unfit for  military  service.   Consequently
the radiographic  abnormalities  were  not  considered  in  the  applicant’s
retirement disability rating computation.

He further states, in part, that under Title 10, United States  Code  (USC),
the Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES), is chartered  to  maintain
a fit and vital fighting force and can only, by law, offer compensation  for
the specific medical condition(s) that cut short a service member’s  career;
and then only to the degree of severity present at the “snap shot”  in  time
in which a final case  disposition  is  reached.   Neither  the  applicant’s
ASCVD, his cardiac ejection fraction, or his leaking aortic valve  were  the
cause for cutting his career  short,  as  neither  condition  had  adversely
impacted his ability to carry-out his military duties at  the  time  of  his
retirement.

On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws, Title  38,  USC,
the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition  found
to be service-connected, without regard to its demonstrated  impact  upon  a
service member’s retainability or fitness for duty.   Title  38  takes  into
account the fact  that  a  person  can  acquire  physical  conditions  that,
although not unfitting at the time of  separation,  may  later  progress  in
severity and alter the  individual’s  ability  to  function  or  to  sustain
employment.

In addition, under Title  38  the  DVA  is  empowered  to  periodically  re-
evaluate veterans for the purpose of adjusting the DVA compensation  ratings
as the level of impairment resulting from  a  particular  medical  condition
may vary over time.  Thus,  the  MDES  and  DVA  represent  a  continuum  of
medical care and disability compensation that starts with entry onto  active
duty and extends for the life of the veteran.

Nonetheless, acknowledgment of the radiographic evidence of the ASCVD  prior
to  the  applicant’s  retirement  in  December  1975,   and   its   clinical
progression thereafter, cannot now  be  utilized  to  justify  retroactively
assigning a new finding  of  unfit  by  the  DoD  and  the  granting  of  an
additional military disability rating for a medical condition that  was  not
considered unfitting at the time of separation from military service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

He  was  informed  by  the  DVA  that  he  had   systemic   arteriosclerotic
cardiovascular disease at the  time  of  his  retirement,  and  believes  he
should have been given a higher rating by the  Air  Force  when  he  retired
from active duty.

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.  The  Board  notes  the  applicant  retired
from the Air Force based on sufficient service for retirement, and  not  due
to physical disability.  He was not found unfit for continued service  prior
to his retirement or processed through the MDES.  The  DVA  initially  rated
him as 10 percent  service-connected  disability  on  1  Apr  76.   The  DVA
subsequently increased his rating to 100 percent effective 13 Oct  04.   The
MDES can by law under Title 10, only offer compensation for  those  service-
incurred diseases or injuries, which specifically rendered  a  member  unfit
for continued active service,  were  the  cause  for  termination  of  their
career, and then only to the degree of impairment present  at  the  time  of
separation and not based on future possibilities.  The DVA  operating  under
Title 38, USC is authorized to offer compensation for any medical  condition
found to be service-connected, without regard to its impact upon  a  service
member’s retainability or fitness for duty.  Further, the fact the  DVA  may
grant  certain  service-connected  compensation  rating  does  not   warrant
similar action by the Air Force.  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 this application  in Executive
Session on 30 Jan 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
            Mrs. Lea Gallogly, Member
            Mr. Kurt R. Lafrance, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2007-03077:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Memo, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Dec 07.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Dec 07.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s annotated remarks to the BCMR Medical
                 Consultant’s Memo, dated 4 Dec 07.



               THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
               Chair