RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00625

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His medical discharge currently rated at 20 percent, be upgraded 
to medically retired at 100 percent in the grade of staff 
sergeant (SSgt), with all rights and privileges.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on his ratings from the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA) for his diagnosis of Chronic Severe Post Traumatic Stress 
Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Sleep Apnea, 
Hiatal Hernia (with Varretts Esophagus), Left Forearm Chronic 
pain, Left Forearm/Hand Nerve Damage; his compensable rating 
should be changed to 100 percent.  These conditions were 
attributed to an in-line-of-duty motor vehicle accident that 
occurred on 21 Apr 07 and he believes that inadequate time for 
the diagnosis was the reason for the low rating of 20 percent.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the events under review, the applicant was serving in 
the Alabama Air National Guard (AL ANG), in the grade of SSgt.

On 18 Aug 08, the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) diagnosed the 
applicant with chronic left arm pain/left conductive hearing 
loss.  His case was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation 
Board (IPEB).  On 15 Oct 08, the IPEB diagnosed the applicant 
with chronic left arm pain status post Open Reduction Internal 
Fixation (ORIF) radial/ulnar fracture and mild conductive 
hearing loss.  The IPEB recommended the applicant be discharged 
with severance pay with a compensable disability rating of 
10 percent.  On 28 Oct 08, the applicant nonconcurred with its 
findings and his case was referred to the Formal PEB (FPEB).  On 
14 Jan 09, the FPEB concurred with the findings of the IPEB; 
however, they recommended the applicant be discharged with 
severance pay with a compensable disability rating of 
20 percent.  On 15 Jan 09, the applicant concurred with findings 
of the FPEB.  On 2 Feb 09, 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 25 Apr 09, the applicant was discharged from the AL ANG and 
as a Reserve of the Air Force with a reason for separation of 
physical disqualification in the grade of SSgt.  He received 
severance pay with a compensable disability rating of 
20 percent.  He was credited with 14 years, 7 months, and 
21 days of total service for pay.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial, stating, in part, that based on a 
preponderance of the evidence no error or injustice occurred 
during the disability process.  The applicant was not boarded 
for PTSB, TBI or Hiatal Hernia and provides no exception letter 
to the board.

DPFD notes that 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.  Further, it must 
be noted the 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.  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 DPFD 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 19 Apr 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.  He has not 
provided sufficient evidence to show that his other medical 
conditions (PTSD, TBI, or Hiatal Hernia) were unfitting for 
military service.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as 
the basis for our decision that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice.  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-2013-00625 in Executive Session on 15 Oct 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 13. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 16 Apr 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Apr 13.




                                   Panel Chair
3