RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04897
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her narrative reason for separation be changed from Pregnancy
or Childbirth to Medical Retirement.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was discharged because of her pregnancy; however her service
connected disabilities were not evaluated. Immediately after
she was discharged she received a 30 percent service connected
disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 19 Jan 2007, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.
On 4 Apr 2008, she applied for a separation due to her
pregnancy.
On 31 Jul 2008, she was honorably discharged under the
provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen.
Her narrative reason for separation was Pregnancy or
Childbirth. She served 1 year, 6 months and 22 days of total
active service.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant was
approved for a pregnancy discharge per her request and was not
discharged because of medical pregnancy reasons. The basis for
her requested action has no merit. She submitted the request to
gain entitlement to DVA benefits for which she is not entitled
based on her limited time on active duty. The discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of
the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the
discharge authority.
The complete DPSOS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical
Consultant states it is clearly documented that the applicant
was approved for a pregnancy discharge per her request and was
in no way discharged due to medical pregnancy reasons. There is
no medical evidence to support the basis of her request. The
foundation for her requested action has no merit and is
submitted to gain additional DVA entitlements, per her
statements.
Addressing her implicit desire for a medical
separation/retirement, the military Disability Evaluation System
(DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force,
can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only
offers compensation for those service incurred diseases or
injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for
continued active service and were the cause for career
termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present
at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences.
In the case under review there is no medical documentation, to
support a migraine headache history nor pregnancy related
medical conditions that should have been the cause for a medical
separation or retirement. On the other hand, operating under a
different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different
purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any
medical condition determined service incurred, without regard to
[and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a
service member's retainability, fitness to serve, or narrative
reason for release from military service. With this in mind,
Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was
written to allow awarding compensation ratings for any
conditions with a nexus with military service. This is the
reason why an individual can be found fit for release from
active military service for one reason and yet sometime
thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for a
medical condition service-connected, but which was not
militarily unfitting during the period of active service.
The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 15 Jan 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
office (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. 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 office of primary
responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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 Docket Number BC-
2011-04897 in Executive Session on 26 Feb 2013, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-04897:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 5 Mar 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 14 Jun 2012, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 Dec
2012.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 15 Jan 2013.
Acting Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04094
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04094 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation Pregnancy or Childbirth be changed to a medical discharge. On 20 Oct 11, in a corrected advisory, DPSOS further clarified their evaluation and stated since the applicant was not able to complete her service...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00131
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00131 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed to hardship. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While she was enlisted in the Air Force, she gave birth to her son. Additional relevant facts...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02955
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02955 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed from personality disorder to medical discharge. She was discharged for a diagnosed personality disorder however, at the time of the diagnosis she was receiving medical treatment from Mental Health and was...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00235
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00235 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code be changed from MDF Pregnancy or Childbirth to hardship. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends correction of the applicants separation code. Therefore, we recommend that the records be...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00478
Her DD Form 214 reflects her entitlement to the National Defense Service Medal, Air Force Training Ribbon, and the AFOR-Long Tour (AFOR-LT). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to change her rank and pay grade reflected on her DD Form 214. The ribbon was authorized to be awarded to Air Force and Air Force Reserve members credited with completion of an overseas tour on or after 1 Sep 80.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00353
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS does not provide a recommendation. The Medical Consultant states that according to the clinical notes in the applicants records, on 10 Nov 08, the applicant indicated that she had knee problems prior to enlistment but had not sought medical care and failed to report this information to MEPS prior to her enlistment. It must be noted the Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04510
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Narrative Summary states her condition of patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) was not present at the time of the medical history intake and physical examination and the doctor crossed out Existed Prior to Enlistment. She did not have knee problems prior to her enlistment. Therefore, someone at the Review Board Office must have agreed with her and the physician of record that her condition was...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03711
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03711 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her date of separation of 1 Jun 04, be changed to a date after 19 Jul 04. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit D). Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Oct 12.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02194
At the time of her separation she had been disqualified from Air Traffic Control duties and had been continued on active duty awaiting waivers and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing. With regard to the presence of medical conditions that were potentially disqualifying for controller duties, the Medical Consultant states the fact that she decided to voluntarily separate under pregnancy provisions rather than remain on active duty and complete the planned evaluations and...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 02567
Since that time, she was seen at the clinic for alcohol abuse and a suicide attempt on 4 Oct 2002. However, the mental health professional who evaluated her determined that her primary diagnosis was Borderline Personality Disorder and that she had an S4T profile, secondary to her alcohol abuse and involvement in the ADAPT program. She suffers from depression, suicidal ideations, anger issues, and has a personality disorder, which began during her time in the military and has continued...