RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04591
	 XXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her administrative discharge be changed to a medical retirement.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She should have received a medical retirement for her service 
related disabilities.  She was recently informed by a 
psychiatrist that she did meet the criteria for a Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB).

The applicant believes that the Board should find it in the 
interest of justice to consider her untimely application because 
she recently became aware of this injustice while attending a 
program at the Veterans Hospital.  She is 100 percent disabled 
and her injuries are service connected.

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her 
DD form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty; AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation; 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision, medical 
records and various other documents related to her request.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 8 Sep 2001, the applicant entered active duty.

On 25 Aug 2006, she was honorably discharged from the Air Force.  
Her narrative reason for separation is “Completion of Required 
Active Service.”  She served 4 years, 11 months and 18 days of 
active service.

On 14 Sep 2012, the DVA increased the applicant’s 50 percent 
service-connected disability rating for “Post-traumatic Stress 
Disorder (PTSD) with adjustment and depressed mood” to 
100 percent, effective 16 November 2011.




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  Although certain 
medical conditions carry potential disqualification for 
continued military service under AFI 48-123, Medical 
Examinations and Standards, the mere existence of a given 
diagnosis does not automatically warrant a medical separation 
from military service.  Thus, while the applicant has received 
compensation ratings from the DVA, the military Disability 
Evaluation System, operating under Title 10, United States Code 
(USC), can by law only offer 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.  It could not be established that the applicant was 
unable to reasonably perform her military duties due to one or 
more medical conditions during her military service or at the 
time of release from active duty orders.  Therefore, while the 
applicant's case file shows evidence she received evaluations 
and treatment for PTSD, a knee ailment, migraine headaches, 
hearing loss, and tinnitus, other than her placement in the 
Hearing Conservation Program, there were no profile restrictions 
imposed that rendered her non-worldwide qualified.  Thus, based 
upon the supplied service medical evidence, the Medical 
Consultant found no medical condition that established, [or 
should have], a cause and effect relationship between any of her 
medical conditions and the termination of service.

On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws 
(Title 38, USC), 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, the DVA compensation 
system was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for 
any medical condition with a nexus with military service.  This 
is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release 
from active military service and yet sometime thereafter receive 
a compensation rating from the DVA for one or more medical 
conditions found service-connected, but which were not proven 
militarily unfitting during the period of active service.  The 
DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the 
purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or 
decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service 
connected medical condition may vary (improve or worsen) as 
shown in the increased rating for the applicant's PTSD, 
affecting future employability over the lifetime of the veteran.  
Thus, the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or 
injustice that warrants the desired change of the record.



The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 8 May 2014, a copy of the BCMR Medical evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant 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, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the rationale expressed 
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 AFBCMR BC-2013-
04591 in Executive Session on 7 August 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member



The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2013-
04591 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 September 2013, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 April 
        2014.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 May 2014.