. 

ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  95-02912 

COUNSEL : 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

E T  3  0 N& 

RESUME OF CASE: 

- 

In  an  application  dated  8  September  1995,  applicant  requested 
that his records be forwarded to Lackland AFB Physical Evaluation 
Board  (PEB) for an informal determination of disability as of the 
date of his retirement; and he be given the right to appeal to a 
formal PEB if the informal result is unsatisfactory to him. 

L 

On  12 December  1996, the  Board  considered  and  recommended  that 
applicant be evaluated by a Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB), PEB, 
and Formal PEB, if necessary, to determine his medical condition 
as of 30 September 1994; and that  the results of the evaluation 
be  forwarded to the AFBCMR.  The Board concluded that applicant 
had significant neurological problems  for several years prior to 
his  retirement.  This  finding  was  supported  by  the ifact  that 
applicant was  scheduled in August  1994 for a Medical Evaluation 
Board  (MEB)  prior  to  his  retirement  because  his  medical 
qualification  for  worldwide  duty  was  questionable. 
However, 
there was no evidence in the record to indicate that an MEB ever 
reviewed applicant's  qualifications; or, if an MEB did review the 
records, what criteria was utilized to indicate that he overcame 
the  presumption  of  fitness.  A  complete copy  of  the  Record  of 
Proceedings is attached at Exhibit G. 

Currently,  the Department of Veterans Affairs  (DVA) has  awarded 
applicant  a  service-connected  disability  rating  of  30%  for 
Meniere's Disease, d.c.  6205.  In addition, the DVA has  awarded 
service-connection,  but  no  disability  percentage  for  the 
following  conditions: 
perforated  ear  drum,  irritable  colon, 
varicose veins, skeletal condition, and a skin condition. 

4 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

a1 Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD,  states  that 
applicant was  evaluated by  the Departments of 
olaryngology, Division of  Surgery, Wilford  Hall 
Medical  Center  (WHMC).  As  a  result of  these medical  findings, 
and  a  thorough  review  of  his  medical  records,  the  attending 
specialists determined that the applicant does not currently have 

AFBCMR 95- 02912 

Meniere's  Disease,  nor  was  it  present  at  the  time  of  his 
retirement  from  active  duty. 
Further,  as  the  applicant 
demonstrated no diagnosis disqualifying  for consideration by  an 
MEB,  the WHMC Chairman, Department of Boards and Exams, did not 
convene an MEB  but  rather  forwarded the  examination  results to 
the AFPC  Disability Division for review and  further processing. 
The WHMC medical  examinations were provided to the Informal PEB 
(IPEB) to  document  how  they  would  have  determined  applicant's 
fitness for continued duty had an MEB been forwarded to them with 
a  diagnosis  of  Meniere's-like  syndrome  (VASRD Code  6299-6205). 
After  a  full  review,  the  IPEB determined  that  they  would  have 
found  applicant  fit  for  continued  military  service  and 
recommended his  return  to  duty.  The  board  remarks  indicated, 
"[Applicant] has syrnptomatolgy suggestive of Meniere's Disease or 
partial  seizures.  These  conditions  were  not  confirmed  at  the 
time of retirement.  No  specific diagnosis was  found.  In spite 
of  [Applicant 'SI 
symtomatology, a preponderance of  the evidence 
shows  that  he  was  able  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  office, 
grade,  rank  and  rating. 
Inability  to  perform  special  skills 
(e.gOf flying)  is  not  a  sole  criterion  for  an  unfitness' 
determination. 
The  IPEB  finds  [Applicant]  fit  for  military 
Further,  even  had  his  fitness  been  questionable, 
service. 
[Applicant] would not have overcome the presumption of fitness. 
Therefore, DPPD concludes that had  applicant received an MEB  in 
September  1994 and  had  it  been  forwarded to  the  PEB,  the  IPEB 
would have recommended he be found fit and returned to duty.  The 
Chief  states  that  as  a  Special  Assistant  to  the  Director 
Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council,  he  wbuld  have 
approved  the  IPEB  recommendation  and  directed  his  return  to 
active  duty. 
This  would  have  closed  the  disability  case. 
Appeals/appearances before  a  Formal  PEB  are  reserved  for  those 
members  being  involuntarily  separated  or  retired  by  reason  of 
physical disability. 
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached 
at Exhibit H. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  reviewed the Air  Force  evaluation  and  states  that  he 
has never claimed to have Meniere's Disease.  The only pertinent 
statement  in  the  "Facts"  in  the  letter 
is,  " [Applicant] had 
symptomatolgy  suggestive  of  Meniere's  Disease  or  partial 
seizures."  Since July 1993, it has been the undiagnosed cause of 
those seizures that has been debilitating.  He includes a memo to 
his attorney informing him that his trip to WHMC was waste of the 
USAF's  time  and money.  A  simple hearing  test  is  n o t   going  to 
reveal  the  underlying  cause. 
Extensive  testing  has  been 
accomplished  by  Wright-Patterson  Medical  Center  (WPMC), Miami 
Valley Medical Center, Southern Illinois School of Medicine, and 
numerous physicians.  They  all  confirm  that  there  is  a  balance 
abnormality of some unknown origin.  The VA  could not  determine 

+ 

2 

AFBCMR 95-02912 

the  cause  but  confirmed  that  the  problem  was  debilitating  and 
awarded compensation.  The WHMC  examining physician's  assessment 
is that his  symptoms are not  consistent with Meniere's  Disease, 
yet he mentions that he has read the WPMC's ENT  notes that ruled 
out Meniere's.  He  states that he has a problem, but  it is not 
Meniere's. 
It  is  his  desire  to  have  his  records  reflect  a 
medical  discharge  even  though  there  is  no  monetary  change 
(besides taxes) to his retirement. 

Applicant's  complete  response, with  attachment,  is  attached  at 
Exhibit J. 

THE  BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice 
warranting applicant's  retirement for physical disability.  After 
thoroughly  reviewing  the  results  of  the  Informal  Physical ' 
Evaluation Board  (IPEB), we  are  in  agreement with  the  comments 
and recommendation of the Air  Force that applicant should not be 
permanently  retired by  reason of physical  disability.  We  note 
that the IPEB concluded that had a Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB)- 
been  forwarded  to  them  prior  to  applicant ' s  retirement,  they 
would  have  found  that  applicant was  fit  for continued military 
service and would have recommended his return to duty.  Although 
applicant  had  symptomatology  suggestive  of  Meniere's I  Disease, 
these conditions were not confirmed at the time of retirement.  A 
preponderance of  the  evidence  shows  that  applicant was  able  to 
perform  the  duties  of  his  office,  grade,  rank,  and  rating; 
therefore, he would not have overcome the presumption of fitness. 
Applicant  has  received  a  disability  rating  from  the  VA  for 
Meniere's  Disease, and we believe that the VA is the appropriate 
agency  for  awarding  compensation  for  his  condition.  It  this 
respect,  it  must  be  noted  that  the  Air  Force  and  the  VA  are 
separate  federal agencies and  operate  under  different  laws  and  - 
policies.  The Air  Force assesses a  service member's disability 
with respect to fitness for duty, while the VA rates for any and 
all  service  connected  conditions, to  the  degree  they  interfere 
with  future  employability,  without  consideration  of  fitness. 
Lastly, applicant's request to be  given the right to  appeal the 
IPEB's decision was considered; however, in accordance with Title 
10, United States Code  (10 U S C ) ,   Section 1214, appearances before 
a  formal  PEB  are  reserved  for  individuals  who  are  being 
involuntarily  separated  or  retired  by  reason  of  physical 
disability.  Therefore, in view of the decision by  the  IPEB and 
without a basis  to question the integrity of the members of the 
IPEB,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the 
relief sought in this application. 

2.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and  it has not 
been  shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel 
will  materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s) 

3 

involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably  - 
considered. 

AFBCMR 95-02912 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 this application in 
Executive Session on  9 September  1997, under  the  provisions  of 
AFI 36-2603: 

Mr. Henry C ,   Saunders, Panel Chairman 
Mr. Mike Novel, Member 
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit G.  ROP, dated 30 Jan 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 27 Mar 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit I. Letters, AFBCMR, dated 10 Apr  &  27 May 97. 
Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jun 97. 

4