RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-04657
            INDEX CODE:
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be medically retired from service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her Medical Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  decision  should  be  revisited.   She
should have received a  medical  retirement.   The  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA) office granted her 40 percent for Fibromyalgia Syndrome.

In support of her request, the applicant submits copies of her AF Form  100,
Request and Authorization for Separation, her DD Form  214,  Certificate  of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, her VA  Rating  Decision  (excerpted)
and a physical evaluation memorandum.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 Apr 96, the applicant enlisted in  the  Regular  Air  Force.   She  was
honorably discharged on 28 Apr 09 for disability, with severance  pay.   She
served 13 years and 25 days on active duty.

On 17 Jun 08, a MEB narrative summary cited the applicant’s chief  complaint
and diagnosis  under  review  as  Fibromyalgia.   The  report  included  the
applicant’s symptoms, described as diffuse myalgias,  chronic  fatigue,  and
irritable bowel syndrome and their effect on her duties.

On 14 Jul 08, the applicant submitted a letter to  the  MEB  discussing  her
duties and deployments.  She also discussed  her  chronic  fatigue  syndrome
which reportedly began in  98-99.   She  attributed  her  physical  training
failures directly to her Fibromyalgia.

On 29  Jul  08,  the  MEB  convened  for  a  diagnosis  of  the  applicant’s
Fibromyalgia.   No  other  medical  condition  was  included  in   the   MEB
proceeding  and  no  other  conditions   were   presented   as   potentially
disqualifying for military service.  An undated letter  from  her  commander
states the applicant “has no in-garrison duty  limiting  conditions  and  is
able to work  any  shift  required.”   The  applicant  disagreed  with  this
assessment of her ability to function.

On 19 Sep 08,  an  Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)  found  the
applicant unfit for service and recommended  discharge  with  severance  pay
with a 20 percent disability rating for Fibromyalgia.  On  22  Sep  08,  the
applicant disagreed with this decision and appealed  the  finding  before  a
Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) for  receipt  of  an  additional  10
percent disability rating for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome which  combined  with
the 20 percent rating for Fibromyalgia would render her retirement  eligible
with a combined disability rating of 30 percent.

On 18 Nov 08, the  FPEB  agreed  with  the  IPEB  decision  and  recommended
discharge with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating.  The  FPEB
did not find her Chronic Fatigue Syndrome separately unfitting,  citing  her
reported participation in physical fitness training several days  each  week
and a reported continued work of full shifts in the  debrief  section.   The
applicant did not agree with the  decision  of  the  FPEB  and  prepared  an
appeal to the next appellate review level.

On 25 Nov 08, the applicant submitted a rebuttal letter  to  the  Disability
Division in which she disagreed with the accuracy of several  statements  in
her records to include the reference of her ability to  perform  in-garrison
duties as made by her commander.  In response to the  applicant’s  rebuttal,
a  family  physician  supplied  a  letter  which  noted   a   rheumatologist
characterized the applicant as having two  distinct  and  separate  clinical
diagnoses.  He acknowledged that there was “much overlap  between”  the  two
conditions, in his opinion, “making it difficult to say with  certainty  the
applicant suffered from two distinct  entities.”   The  applicant  was  also
being treated with distinct medications for the two conditions.

On 26 Jan 09, the Secretary of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council  (SAFPC)
agreed with the rating determinations of the IPEB and  FPEB.   Additionally,
SAFPC found that rating the applicant’s chronic fatigue separately from  her
Fibromyalgia would constitute pyramiding disability ratings.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the  letter  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
notes the applicant has not supplied the  contents  or  the  date  that  the
Compensatory and Pension evaluation was performed (which likely occurred  on
20 Apr 09) nor is the rationale for the decision provided.  The DVA  elected
not to rate the applicant’s fatigue as a separate unfitting condition.

The Medical Consultant’s evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  3  Nov
10, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  this  office
has received no response (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 basis to recommend granting the  relief
sough 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 8 Dec 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2009-04657:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 10, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  BCMR Med Consultant, dated 22 Oct 10 w/atch.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Nov 10.




                                   Panel Chair