RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00799 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

She be given a medical retirement. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was not given adequate consideration for a medical 
retirement and her headaches were overlooked in her disability 
computation at the time of her discharge. 

 

Appropriate consideration of her headaches, with a rating 
comparable to the 30 percent assigned by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) within nine months of her discharge, 
along with the 10 percent for her Dsythymic Disorder, would have 
made her eligible for a medical retirement. 

 

Her headaches were listed as a condition which was incurred 
while entitled to basic pay and did not exist prior to service 
and the headaches were noted several times in her Medical 
Evaluation Board Narrative Summary; however, her AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation 
Board, fails to ascribe a disability rating for the issue 
clearly identified in the reports. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her 
AF Form 356, dated 13 Jan 03; AF 618, Medical Board Report, 
dated 24 Sep 02; Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary, 
dated 20 Sep 02; and DVA rating decision, dated 11 Dec 03. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered her second term in the Regular Air Force 
on 31 Jul 00 and was discharged on 10 Mar 03. 

 

On 24 Sep 02, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB) where it was determined she was fit for continued military 
service. 


 

In an undated letter to the MEB and Informal Physical Evaluation 
Board (IPEB), the applicant’s commander recommended her 
discharge, citing her diagnosed depression and insomnia, duty 
profile restriction, and disqualification from worldwide 
deployments. 

 

On 4 Oct 02, the IPEB found the applicant unfit and recommended 
discharge. On 9 Oct 02, the applicant disagreed with the 
findings and requested a hearing before the Formal Physical 
Evaluation Board (FPEB). 

 

On 29 Oct 02, the FPEB recommended discharge. The applicant 
disagreed with the findings and appealed to the Secretary of the 
Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) and requested to be returned 
to duty, allowed to cross-train, or be allowed to receive 
separation pay. 

 

On 13 Jan 03, SAFPC directed the applicant’s discharge with 
severance pay and a ten percent disability rating. SAFPC noted 
the applicant had a previous successful enlistment in the Air 
Force, without emergence of any mental impairment or therapies, 
which resulted in an honorable discharge in 1997. Also noted in 
the SAFPC decision, was her frequency of mental health 
interventions during portions of 2001 and much of 2002, in 
addition to her need for a non-rotating duty schedule. 

 

The DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical 
condition determined service-incurred or aggravated, without 
regard to its proven or demonstrated impact upon a service 
member’s retainability or ability to perform military service. 
The DVA is also empowered to periodically re-evaluate veterans 
for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating as the level 
of impairment or severity of a given medical condition may vary 
(worsen or improve) over time. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial and states the 
applicant has not met the burden of proof that warrants a change 
in her records. 

 

Although there is evidence the applicant was treated for 
headaches during the course of her military service, there is 
insufficient evidence that it was, or should have been, a stand-
alone cause for deficient duty performance or career 
termination; as would otherwise have been demonstrated through 
performance reports, sufficient medical evidence of lost duty 
time due to treatment of headaches (e.g., recurring emergency 
treatment), profile restrictions directed at the headaches which 
impact worldwide qualification of sufficient level of 


restriction, e.g., “P4,” commander’s assessments, and medical 
progress notes. 

 

Further, in accordance with Department of Defense Instruction 
1332.38, Enclosure 3, Part 3, E3.P3.3.4, Cause and Effect 
Relationship, regardless of the presence of illness or injury, 
inadequate performance of duty, by itself, shall not be 
considered as evidence of unfitness due to physical disability 
unless it is established that there is a cause and effect 
relationship between the two. The BCMR Medical Consultant finds 
insufficient evidence of a cause and effect relationship 
specifically between the applicant’s headaches and an impairment 
of duty performance; and finds insufficient evidence that this 
particular condition was separately unfitting at the time of the 
applicant’s evaluation and separation. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant on 8 Jan 10 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not 
received a response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 his rationale 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 Docket Number 
BC-2009-00799 in Executive Session on 4 March 2010, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 09, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 31 Dec 09. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jan 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair