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data that lacked depth and was an outdated method of determining 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.