RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-04519
            INDEX CODE:  108.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be granted a medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She failed a hearing  test.   Further  testing  revealed  a  right  acoustic
neuroma.  In Apr  00,  the  neuroma  was  surgically  removed  resulting  in
permanent hearing loss and difficulty with tinnitus and vertigo.  She  could
no longer perform her duties on the flight line.

In support of her request, the applicant submits copies of  Retired  Reserve
Order Number EK-5422, her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge
from Active Duty, and excerpts from her medical records.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 Jul 01, the applicant was  honorably  discharged  and  placed  on  the
Retired Reserve List in the grade of master sergeant.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force and the BCMR Medical  Consultant  at
Exhibits C, D and F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFRC/SGP recommends denial.  SGP states based on  the  limited  documents
provided it is unclear what medical condition would  qualify  the  applicant
for a medical retirement.  SGP notes the  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (PEB)
election form and the  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  fact  sheet  which
indicates a disqualifying condition that warranted  a  “4T”  (Not  Medically
Qualified  for  Worldwide  Duty)  profile  would  also  indicate  Disability
Evaluation System (DES) processing would be required; however, there  is  no
profile indicating such status.  The provided  profile  indicates  temporary
conditions existed that were not disqualifying or unfitting.   Additionally,
the medical documents provided refer solely to  hearing  loss  secondary  to
right  acoustic  neuroma,  a  condition  which  is  not  disqualifying   for
continued  military  service  in  accordance  with   AFI   48-123,   Medical
Examinations   and   Standards    Volume    2-Accession,    Retention    and
Administration, Attachment 2, and therefore not  subject  to  referral  into
the DES process and consideration for medical retirement.

SGP notes to be eligible for medical retirement,  the  applicant  must  have
incurred or aggravated a disqualifying condition in the  line  of  duty.   A
Line of Duty (LOD) determination was provided for  the  diagnosis  of  right
acoustic neuroma; however, it was not processed beyond the medical  reviewer
and no final determination is provided.

SGP opines the applicant’s request for medical retirement  does  not  appear
to be warranted based on the evidence available.  She did not suffer from  a
medically disqualifying condition  that  would  warrant  her  assessment  as
unfit for continued military service and referral into the DES process.

The complete SGP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

HQ AFRC/A1K recommends denial.  A1K states based on the  available  evidence
the applicant’s request does not appear to be warranted.

The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 Mar 09, the applicant provided  additional  documentation  to  support
her request.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
notes the applicant had reportedly experienced  a  long  history  of  right-
sided  ear  fullness  believed  to  be  “water  in  the  ear.”   Right-sided
sensorineural hearing loss was noted after an audiological  examination.   A
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the applicant’s  brain  revealed  a
12 to 14 millimeter mass located at the right cerebellopontine  angle.   The
location and type of mass were consistent  with  an  acoustic  neuroma  -  a
condition that could be disqualifying for  further  military  service.   The
applicant signed a document acknowledging that she may request her  case  be
forwarded to the PEB in the event she is found  medically  disqualified  for
worldwide duty; also an awareness that if she  elected  the  PEB  review  it
would be solely for a  fitness  determination  and  not  an  entitlement  to
disability compensation.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) granted the applicant  compensation
at the 100 percent rate  due  to  her  inability  to  secure  and  follow  a
substantially gainful occupation due to  service-connected  disabilities  at
60 percent or more among other qualifying factors.  A review of  the  rating
decision demonstrates that  the  DVA  awarded  her  compensation  for  first
degree atrioventricular block, temporormandibular joint  dysfunction,  right
ear hearing loss, tinnitus, loss of skull  associated  with  right  acoustic
neuroma, hemorrhoids, and a scar.

The Medical Consultant opines that  the  applicant’s  acoustic  neuroma  was
nonservice-incurred or aggravated.  Consequently, her medical condition  did
not qualify for processing through the DES for a MEB or PEB with  disability
compensation.  She was eligible for  a  PEB  review  solely  for  a  fitness
determination; however, because of her satisfactory  service  she  was  also
eligible to transfer to the Retired Reserve and receive retirement  benefits
upon reaching age 60.

The Medical Consultant notes the DVA is  authorized  to  offer  compensation
for any condition it finds service-connected without regard  to  its  impact
upon  a  given  service  member’s  retainability.   For   a   Reservist,   a
disqualifying  medical  condition  must  be  found   service   incurred   or
aggravated in order to qualify for disability processing.   The  burden  for
establishing in line of duty is different  from  establishment  of  service-
connection.  Thus, oddly a medical condition may be found  in  the  line  of
duty, but still not compensable, if not found  to  be  service  incurred  or
aggravated.  For the DVA, if a condition  first  manifests  during  military
service, then it is  more  often  than  not  found  service-connected.   The
Medical Consultant opines the applicant has not  met  the  burden  of  proof
that justifies the change in the record she desires.

The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 20 Jun 09, the applicant requested her case  be  administratively  closed
and reopened per her request dated 20 May 10.

She provided a  six-paged  detailed  account  in  response  to  the  Medical
Consultant’s comments.

She states a portion of her skull was removed to access the  right  acoustic
neuroma and the condition  was  aggravated  during  surgery.   She  notes  a
change in her profile making her “Not Worldwide Qualified.”  She states  her
scars and keloids were so  extensive  they  seriously  interfered  with  the
function of her body and/or proper fit and wear of military equipment.   Her
LOD determination was partially completed by her unit for her to provide  to
her surgeon.

Further processing of her  LOD  ceased  without  explanation.   Neither  her
commander or senior leaders ever  discussed  the  matter  with  her;  hence,
there was no mention of an Interim LOD  or  incapacitation  pay.   Almost  a
year passed without further  action  on  her  case.   She  could  not  fight
anymore and wanted to retire.  She never received a completed  copy  of  her
LOD determination.

She requested  a  PEB  but  her  request  was  never  processed.   She  also
requested medical retirement,  but  was  not  offered  guidance  on  how  to
proceed.   She  had  to  change  civilian  jobs  due  to   extreme   medical
difficulties and underwent severe mental and financial  hardship.   She  was
forced to sell  her  home  and  move  to  another  state  due  to  increased
sensitivity to cold weather.  She was homeless and jobless for over  a  year
and relied on family and friends for support.  She did  not  receive  a  100
percent disability rate from the DVA until  Aug  08,  just  short  of  eight
years from the time she underwent her procedure.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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,  to  include  her
response to the Medical Consultant’s evaluation; however,  we  do  not  find
her assertions sufficiently persuasive to override  the  rationale  provided
by the BCMR Medical Consultant.  Therefore, we agree with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and  adopt  his  rationale  as
the basis for the 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 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 7 Jul 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Panel Chair
      Member
      Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2008-04519:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Dec 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFRC/A1K, dated 10 Feb 09.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 09.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Mar 09 w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 Jun 09.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Jun 09.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 May 10, w/atchs.




                                   Panel Chair