RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05530

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His compensable disability rating of 20 percent be changed.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that certain medical documentation from a civilian 
orthopedic specialist was intentionally left out of his record 
when it was reviewed by the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and 
the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).

The diagnosis was not the actual results he and his Primary Care 
Manager (PCM) agreed should be stated in his MEB file.  He feels 
his records should be corrected due to the lack of information 
intentionally left out of his original MEB evaluation file.  The 
findings from the civilian specialist were not included in the 
original package for his back or the misdiagnosis of reactive-
air-way disease; which is not really a specific diagnosis, and 
should be referred to as asthma due to contradictions found by 
the recent doctors evaluation received since his release from 
the Air Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; copies of his Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) 
Decisional documents; additional medical documents, and various 
other documents.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the events under review, the applicant was serving in 
the Regular Air Force, in the grade of staff sergeant as a crew 
chief.

On 25 Sep 09, the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) diagnosed the 
applicant with Scheuermann's Kyphosis/Thoracic Back Pain/Lumbar 
Back Pain and Reactive Airway Disease and his case was referred 
to the IPEB.  On 27 Apr 10, the IPEB diagnosed the applicant 
with Thoracolumbar Back Pain associated with Scheuermann's 
Kyphosis and Reactive Airway Disease.  They recommended the 
applicant be discharged with severance pay with a compensable 
disability rating of 20 percent.  On 12 May 10, the applicant 
nonconcurred with their findings and his case was referred to 
the Formal PEB (FPEB).  The applicant submitted a request to 
waive his right to a FPEB hearing and concurred with the 
findings of the IPEB.  On 26 May 10, the President of the FPEB 
approved his request and recommended discharge with severance 
pay, with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent.  On 
26 May 10, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) directed the applicant be discharged with severance pay 
with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent.  

On 28 Jun 10, the applicant was discharged with severance pay 
with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent.  He was 
credited with 7 years, 10 months, and 16 days of active service.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial, stating, in part, that based on a 
preponderance of the evidence no error or injustice occurred 
during the disability process.  

DPSD notes that USAF disability boards must rate disabilities 
based on the member's condition at the time of evaluation; in 
essence a snapshot of their condition at that time.  As a matter 
of background, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the DVA 
disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws.  
Under Title 10, USC, PEBs must determine if a member's condition 
renders them unfit for continued military service relating to 
their office, grade, rank or rating.  The fact that a person may 
have a medical condition does not mean that the condition is 
unfitting for continued military service.  To be unfitting, the 
condition must be such that it alone precludes the member from 
fulfilling their military duties.  If the board renders a 
finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate compensation due 
to the premature termination of their career.  Conversely, it is 
the charge of the DVA to pick up where the AF must, by law, 
leave off.  Under Title 38, the DVA may rate any service-
connected condition based upon future employability or 
reevaluate based on changes in the severity of a condition.  
This often results in different ratings by the two agencies.

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 25 Jan 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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, the applicant’s case has undergone an 
exhaustive review by the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and we did not find the evidence provided 
sufficient to overcome its assessment of the case.  Therefore, 
we agree with the OPR’s recommendation and adopt the rationale 
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has 
failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered an error or 
injustice.  The applicant asserts there were missing documents 
and misdiagnosis of his respiratory condition during his medical 
evaluation; however, we agree with the OPR that based on the 
governing directives and laws in effect at the time, it appears 
that Air Force officials acted within established regulatory 
parameters in the administration of his medical review and 
separation.  In addition, we did not find any evidence that 
would convince us that his diagnosis was inaccurate or his 
medical review had been compromised.  In view of the above and 
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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-05530 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 17 Jan 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jan 13.




                                   Panel Chair