ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1993-00799-2 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His disability rating with the Department of Defense (DoD) be changed from 70 percent to 100 percent. 2. His medical conditions be designated as combat-related illnesses. ________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 28 May 93, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request for an increase in his disability rating, reclassification of his disability to be designated as combat exercise related, promotion to the grade of colonel (O-6), award of $850,000 disability compensation and award of $1,000,000 for loss of consortium, comfort and society. In the initial case, the applicant contended that the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) disability rating of 70% was based on superficial data that lacked depth and was an outdated method of determining degrees of disability. He also contended that he was disabled at the hands of incompetent medical personnel and his condition should be considered combat related. Additionally, he contended that he would have been promoted to the grade of colonel if he had not been disabled at the hands of incompetent medical personnel. Lastly, he contended that he should be compensated $1M as a fair sum for not being able to lead a full active life as a result of his disability. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. In a new DD Form 149, dated 29 Apr 12, the applicant requests reconsideration based upon newly-discovered evidence not reasonably available at the time of his initial application. The newly-discovered evidence includes the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) determination indicating the applicant was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), effective 2 Nov 11, and was granted a 70 percent disability rating for this condition. The applicant contends that because the DVA found his medical condition to be presumed service- connected, DoD should warrant his condition as combat-related and increase his disability rating to 100 percent. A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 Sep 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit I). On 22 Oct 13, the applicant requested that his case be administratively closed to allow him additional time to evaluate his options regarding the BCMR Medical Consultant’s Advisory. On 22 Oct 13, the applicant’s case was administratively closed per his request. On 6 Jan 14, the applicant requested that his case be reopened and provided a two-page typed response to the BCMR Medical Consultant’s Advisory and on that same date, his case was reopened. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of his record. Under the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDEAS), Congress has mandated that the DVA determines all disability rating determinations, while the Military Department applies the rating decision only to the unfitting medical condition(s). Therefore, these two bodies acted within their individual authorities based upon supplied evidence and the preponderance of the evidence supports the 60 percent disability rating assigned by a previous FPEB for his atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ACVD). On 23 Sep 88, the applicant’s second and final Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) assessment was dictated. The record indicates that corrective by-pass surgery had been twice recommended in 1987 and 1988, but the applicant rejected because he did not consider his lifestyle to be unacceptably affected by his agina. In the provider’s concluding diagnostic remarks, it was his opinion that the applicant’s diagnoses at the time were: (1) Coronary Artery Disease, status-post anterior wall myocardial infraction, Class III angina pectoris, (2) Rectal bleeding, (3) External hemorrhoids, and (4) Gastroesophageal reflux disease. In regards to the applicant’s request for designating his heart disease as combat-related, the presumptive rules for establishing service-connection by the DVA for exposure to Agent Orange is acknowledged; however, the applicant’s 20 year history of smoking two packs of cigarettes per day, is a greater risk factor for developing coronary artery disease and is compelling evidence of a greater competing cause of the applicant’s disease. Additionally, although the applicant has been granted a 70 percent disability rating for his diagnosis of PTSD, effective 2 Nov 11, and was determined to be service-incurred, it was not a cause for unfitness to serve or for career termination. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant asserts that he was one of the few that served 13 months in Vietnam. He was one of the 15 airmen that were sent to Phu Cat Valley as an advanced party with the famous Red Horse Squadron. For weeks, Agent Orange was sprayed continually in the Phu Cat Valley area. Contrary to the medical evaluation, the symptoms that led to his hospitalization from 6-18 Apr 85 occurred while standing, sitting and walking but never after eating as the medical advisory stated. Additionally, the statement that he rejected bypass surgery after being twice recommended was taken out of context but partly true. At the time, his arteries were 31 to 32 percent blocked and failed to meet the profile of 70 percent that required bypass surgery. This statistic, along with the doctor’s inability to explain how bypassing reasonably clear arteries could help was a gamble he was not willing to take. Furthermore, the statement that he smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 20 years is an inaccurate presumption. The facts are he smoked on and off for 8 years and the presumption in his opinion, was conveniently put forth to detract from the causative factor Agent Orange. His current medical condition would not be as it is, if he was correctly diagnosed. Protocol requires that a patient’s heart be checked when diagnosed with esophageal spasms and such action was not taken in his case. Also, when he suffered a massive heart attack for almost three hours, he asked for nitro for his pain but the emergency staff refused his request. Had he received competent medical support in a timely manner, he could have had bypass surgery and been able to stay in the Air Force. Medical incompetence and negativity to his cry for help caused his disability not smoking. Additionally, the applicant asserts that his case is not only about ejection factors or metabolic equivalents but about being unable to work for 27 years due to a number of medical issues to include his diagnosis of PTSD. Most of his conditions were due to medical flaws. Lastly, he asserts that the Air Force refused to allow him to be reassigned to a noncombat ready wing as a staff officer. This is a position that would be equal to light manual labor. The Air Force indirectly stated he was incapable of performing at the 60 percent disability level and consequently should have been awarded 100 percent. (Exhibit J). ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of his appeal, we remain unconvinced the applicant has been a victim of an error or injustice to warrant changing his record to show that his medical conditions were combat related. We are also not persuaded by the evidence that the applicant’s diagnosis of PTSD or any other medical conditions warrant a change in his disability rating. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record or the rationale provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the rationale expressed that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has 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 any of 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-1993-00799-2 in Executive Session on 14 Jan 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1993-00799 was considered: Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 28 May 93, w/atchs. Exhibit G. DD Form 149, dated 29 Apr 12, w/atchs. Exhibit H. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Sep 13. Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 24 Sep 13. Exhibit J. Email, Applicant, dated 6 Jan 14.