RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02024

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation be changed to show she was 
separated due a service connected disability rather than a 
disability that existed prior to service (EPTS).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her reason for discharge should reflect her medical conditions 
were incurred while she was on active duty based on the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) establishing a service 
connection for her reactive airway disease, major depressive 
disorder, and gastric ulcer. 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of DD 
Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed 
Forces of the United States, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty, and a DVA Decision memorandum.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 Oct 00, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

While on active duty, the applicant was seen and treated for a 
variety of medical conditions to include pelvic pain and 
depression.  She underwent an extensive medical work-up for the 
pain which resulted with an unclear etiology for the pain.  On 
10 Jan 02, the applicant underwent a mental health evaluation 
and reported a long history of depressed mood and suicidal 
ideations and attempts.

On 25 Jan 02, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB) for chronic abdominal pain and major depressive disorder.  
The MEB referred the applicant’s case to the Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB).

On 15 Feb 02, IPEB reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended 
discharge under other than Chapter 61, 10 USC, noting the 
applicant’s medical condition existed prior to service (EPTS) 
and had not been permanently aggravated by military service.  On 
25 Feb 02, the applicant disagreed with the findings and 
recommendations and requested a hearing before the Formal 
Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).  

On 29 Mar 02, the FPEB reviewed the applicant’s case and 
concurred with findings and recommendations of the IPEB.  On 
29 Mar 02, the applicant disagreed with the findings and 
recommendations of the FPEB and appealed to the Secretary of the 
Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a disability retirement.

On 29 May 02, SAFPC reviewed the applicant’s case, to include 
her rebuttal, the testimony and evidence before the IPEB and 
FPEB, and directed the applicant be discharged under other than 
Chapter 61, 10 USC.  SAFPC confirmed the finding not in the line 
of duty; EPTS without service aggravation.

On 9 Aug 02, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge 
with a narrative reason for separation of “Disability, Existed 
Prior to Service, PEB.”  She was credited with 1 year, 9 months, 
and 21 days of total active service.

According to documents provided by the applicant, she has sought 
medical care through the DVA and has been awarded service 
connection for her reactive airway disease, major depressive 
disorder and gastric ulcer with a 60 percent combined disability 
rating, effective 10 Aug 02.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice during the disability process.  The 
applicant contends her medical conditions were incurred while on 
active duty and should be considered “in line of duty” based on 
the service connection decision by the DVA.  The applicant was 
referred to the IPEB and was found unfit and recommended for 
discharge.  The applicant appealed to the FPEB.  The FPEB 
concurred with the IPEB and noted the applicant suffered 
significant depressive episodes prior to military service, to 
include suicidal ideations.  The FPEB found the applicant had 
received sufficient medical care and that the diagnosis of major 
depression was correct, existed prior to service, and had not 
been aggravated by military service.  The applicant then 
appealed to SAFPC who concurred with the findings of the PEBs 
and confirmed a finding of not in line of duty.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 21 Jun 13 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.

________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, after a thorough review of the 
evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we 
find no errors in the applicant’s discharge processing.  We 
further find the applicant’s medical condition was thoroughly 
reviewed in accordance with the applicable instructions and 
policy and appropriately determined to have existed prior to her 
service (EPTS) and was therefore not compensable.  As a result, 
she was administratively separated for her EPTS condition.  
Furthermore, the Air Force and the DVA are separate federal 
agencies and operate under different laws and policies.  The Air 
Force is tasked to maintain a fit and vital force and assesses a 
service member's disability with respect to its impact of the 
member’s fitness for duty and, if incurred or aggravated in the 
line of duty, compensates the member based on the degree of 
impairment that cut-short their military career.  In this case, 
however, because the applicant’s condition was not incurred or 
aggravated in the LOD, she was not eligible for disability 
compensation from the military disability evaluation system 
(DES).  The DVA, however, awards ratings for any and all 
conditions that they determine to be service-connected 
conditions, irrespective of findings of the military DES, to the 
degree they interfere with future employability and without 
consideration of fitness for military duty.  When combined these 
two systems provide a continuum of coverage of our veterans.  
For these reasons, it is not uncommon for the military 
department and the DVA to issue different ratings.  Therefore, 
after a careful review of all the facts and circumstances of 
this case, 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-2013-02024 in Executive Session on 4 Feb 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 30 May 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 13.



                                   Panel Chair