AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCZXDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 94-03531
COUNSEL :
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Nov I 2 1ggg
APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show that all of his disabilities of
ratable quality were established with the correct compensable
rating.
He receive any pay and allowances due and continuation of pay for
hospitalization which occurred while awaiting a Formal Physical
Evaluation Board (FPEB).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He disagrees with the decision to discharge him from the Air
Force Reserve on 7 January 1994 by reason of back pain associated
with spinal stenosis with a compensable rating of 20 percent.
On 8 February 1991, while serving on active duty in support of
Operation Desert Shield/Storm, he fell in the shower, sustaining
injuries to his head, back, hip and right elbow. The original
diagnosis was soft tissue injury paralumbar and olecranon trauma
with possible chip or break. He remained under constant care
during the period he served on active duty and it was determined
he was not available for worldwide assignment. He was released
from active duty while in a medical hold status. Contrary to
Title 10, United States Code, he was not afforded the opportunity
to establish a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs
(DVA) for known disabling defects prior to his discharge and no
separation benefit counseling was provided. He was not given a
separation physical to establish his disabilities of ratable
quality for discharge and military pay and retirement. Instead,
he was released from active duty without separation counseling
while denying his rights as a service member to establish a
disability claim prior to separation.
After his separation, he was not informed about continuation pay.
At the time of his release, he was told he was going to be
discharged by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceeding. The
Line of Duty (LOD) determination was not completed until
5 September 1991, as the result of a Congressional Inquiry. As a
result of the LOD investigation, it was determined that the
responsible Air Force officials did not follow established
procedures for keeping him on medical hold until he was afforded
the opportunity to present his claim and a PEB was held.
Instead, despite his disability, he was forced to perform drills,
even though it was known he could not complete satisfactory drill
requirements. In addition to the severe pain he experienced
because of his back problems, he suffered from anxiety,
depression and tinnitus with vertigo.
These disabilities
occurred as a result of his accident and have been denied
throughout. In addition, he has been denied compensation for his
hypertension and pelvic girdle trauma.
When a service member sustains an injury while on active duty,
military authorities should find those disabilities of a ratable
quality for retirement purposes which not only hinder civilian
employment but, more importantly, those which affect military
performance.
He has provided expert medical opinions which
clearly establish each requested disability and substantiates his
request.
In support of his request, the applicant provided reports by his
private physicians, and, copies of correspondence and documents
associated with his service and the events cited in his appeal.
These documents are appended at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant began his military career on 23 March 1976, when he
was appointed a first lieutenant, Biomedical Sciences Corps
(BSC), Reserve of the Air Force, and was voluntarily ordered to
extended active duty as a Pharmacist on 11 October 1976. He was
honorably released from extended active duty on 1 May 1980 and
transferred to the Air Force Reserve, under the provisions of AFR
36-12 (voluntary-release expiration term of service) .
He
continued to participate as an active Reserve member and was
progressively promoted to the grade of major, Reserve of the Air
Force, effective and with a date of rank of 26 April 1985.
dated 29 January 1991, the applicant
By Special Order
was involuntarily ordered to extended active duty
( E m ) by
direction of the President in support of Operation Desert
Shield/Storm. He was relieved from his Reserve assignment as an
.. - ---
le
at Travis AFB, the applicant jumped out of a scaldins hot.shower
. He
and slipped and fell-hi
received treatment at
from
ed to
8 February 1991 to 13 M
be discharged.
and ass
as a clinical pharmacist at
ate of 3 February 1991. On 8 February 1991, whi
--
I _ _ - 1_
-
-
-
2
94- 03531
L5-Sl”.
On 5 April 1991, the applicant was released from active duty and
transferred to the Air Force Reserve, under the provisions of HQ
MAC/DPB MSG
(ANGUS/USAFR member released due to
demobilizati
edited with 2 months and 4 days of
active duty service this period, 4 years, 3 months and 10 days of
total prior active service, and 10 years, 6 months and 29 days of
total prior inactive service at the time of his release from
active duty.
An AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, dated 15 July
1991 , indicated that the applicant’s profile was temporarily
changed to 3P (Significant defect or defects and or disease under
good control, and not requiring regular and close medical
support. Capable of all basic work commensurate with rank and
position).
As a result of his 8 February 1991 injury (contusion lumbar spine
with left sciatic radiculopathy), a Line of Duty (LOD)
determination was conducted and, on 5 September 1991, the finding
was that the injury was incurred in the line of duty.
An AF Form 422, dated 7 August 1992, reflected the applicant‘s
defects/restrictions as ”lumbar disc protrusions L2-3, L 3 - 4 ,
He was assigned a profile of L4 (Lower
L 4 - 5 ,
extremities; Medically unacceptable for worldwide duty or
qualification questionable, including remote and isolated duty.
Strength, range of movement, and efficiency of feet, legs, pelvic
girdle, lower back and lumbar vertebrae). The applicant was
restricted from Reserve participation for pay or point gaining
activities.
By letter, dated 18 September 1992, The Chief, Personnel
Readiness Division, AF/DPXC, forwarded to the Surgeon General‘s
office, AF/SGPC, a letter from the Director, Health Services
Individual Reserve Programs, HQ ARPC/SG, dated 13 August 1992,
requesting the applicant‘s case be reviewed by a Medical Board.
On 5 December 1992, in response to a Congressional Inquiry, the
Air Force Medical Operations Agency, Office of the Surgeon
General, (HQ AFMOA/SGPC) recommended to the Joint and
Mobilization Plans Branch (AF/DPXC) that the applicant be
evaluated by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).
A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 10 March 1993 at
The diagnosis and
sis L4/L5 and disk
herniation to the left at L4/L5 and smaller at L5/S1; with 1991
being the approximate date of origin; incurred while entitled to
basic pay; not existing prior to service; and permanently
aggravated by service. The MEB recommended that the applicant‘s
records be forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for
further evaluation. The board’s recommendation was approved on
15 March 1993 and on 26 March 1993, the applicant was informed of
the findings and recommendations of the MEB. On 28 April 1993,
=
3
94- 03531
the Directorate of Health Services Individual Reserve Programs,
HQ ARPC/SGS, concurred with the recommendation for further
evaluation by the PEB.
An MEB Addendum, dated 23 July 1993, indicated that his worldwide
qualification was questionable.
On 15 September 1993, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board
(IPEB) was convened. The diagnosis of the IPEB follows: Back
pain, associated with spinal stenosis L4-5 and disk herniation to
the left at L4-5 and smaller at L5-Sl; incurred while entitled to
receive basic pay in the line of duty; ratable under VA
diagnostic code 5299-5293 at 20%. The IPEB found the applicant
was unfit because of physical disability and the degree of
impairment might be permanent. The IPEB recommended discharge
with severance pay at a compensable rating of 20 percent. On
9 November 1993, the applicant indicated he disagreed with the
findings and recommendation of the IPEB and submitted a rebuttal
through his counsel (Military Order of the Purple Heart).
A Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) was convened on
9 November 1993. After hearing the applicant's testimony and
reviewing the evidence, the board rendered a diagnosis of back
pain, associated with spinal stenosis L4-5 and disk herniation to
the left at L4-5 and smaller at L5-Sl. The FPEB concurred with
the IPEB's recommendation of discharge with severance pay with a
compensable rating of 20 percent.
On 20 December 1993, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the
applicant be discharged with severance pay and a 2 0 percent
On 19 January 1994, the applicant was
disability rating.
relieved from his assignment with the 9019 Air Reserve Squadron,
Lowry AFB, CO, and discharged by reason of physical disability,
with entitlement to severance pay at a 20 percent compensable
rating.
Applicant's ANG/USAFR Point Credit Summary, reveals that f o r
Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 22 March 1993, he was credited with
43 points and for the period ending 19 January 1994, he was
credited with 18 points. At the time of his separation, he had
accrued 16 years of satisfactory Federal service.
The applicant was rated at 20% by the Department of Veteran's
Affairs on 23 September 1991 for residuals, low back injury. A
DVA rating on 25 March 1992 indicates that the applicant was
evaluated for low back injury and service connection for
hypertension. The DVA amended their disability compensation as
follows: 5293, discogenic disease, residuals low back injury, at
40% and 7101, hypertension at lo%, with a combined compensable
rating of 50%.
On 22 September 1993, the DVA notified the
applicant that his discogenic disease was confirmed and continued
at a 40 percent disability rating.
On 18 June 1994, the
applicant requested the DVA conduct an evaluation of a
=
psychological condition (depression with psychotic features) he
alleged he incurred while on active duty with the USAF Reserve.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Consultant, HQ AFMPC/DPMMMR, reviewed this application
and recommended denial. DPMMMR provided a summary of the facts
contained in the record and indicated that there is no evidence
of error or irregularity in the processing of this case. DPMMMR
is of the opinion that the applicant’s case was properly
evaluated, appropriately rated, and received full consideration
under the provisions of AFR 35-4. DPMMMR stated that action and
disposition in this case were proper and reflect compliance with
Air Force directives which implement the law (Exhibit C).
The Chief, USAF Physical Disability Division, HQ AFMPC/DPMAD,
also reviewed this application and recommended denial. D P W
agreed with the comments of the BCMR Consultant. DPMAD indicated
that the medical consultant has correctly stated the facts in
this case and that the applicant was given full and fair
consideration and awarded a disability rating consistent with the
provisions of the Veteran’s Administration Schedule for Rating
Disabilities.
The applicant exercised his right of appeal
through all levels of review and received a formal hearing of his
case. At that time, he was represented by legal counsel, and
given the opportunity to present any additional documentation.
The applicant nonconcurred with the formal hearing findings and
submitted a written rebuttal to the next appeal level. DPMAD
could not find any evidence on record or submitted by the
applicant that indicated the boards erred in their rating
decisions. This evaluation is appended at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Counsel reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that the
applicant‘s own service has already admitted to an erroneous
separation. The applicant‘s command separated him without proper
authority. He has not been provided any form of continuation pay
while hospitalized or unemployed due to his service-connected
disabilities while waiting two years and six months for a
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to convene.
Prior to the
erroneous separation on 5 April 1991, the applicant’s sciatic
radiculopathy had already been noted. Service cannot disclaim
disabilities which significantly contribute to the applicant’s
overall disability picture. The applicant was hospitalized twice
for major depression while waiting for the PEB to be held. The
applicant contends his injury and mobilization aggravated and
significantly contributed to the severity of his condition. The
Air Force Discharge Review Board claimed the applicant was
working 40 hours per week in his chosen profession. However, the
=
5
94- 03531
I
applicant scheduled a 40 hour week but it became very clear
during the FPEB testimony that the applicant was actually
incapable of performing a full 40 hour week. The applicant does
not desire to pyramid disabilities - he desires to establish
disabilities of ratable quality which would result in the same
cause for a medical discharge. The applicant and counsel request
the Board consider all disabilities since they significantly
contribute to the whole person concept and his ability to
maintain employment (Exhibit H) .
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Chief, Physical Disability
Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, again reviewed the application, which
plicant's 12 November 1993 letter to Congresswoman
The specific questions the applicant raised in
the aforementioned letter concerning the disability issue have
been addressed by DPPD in their evaluation at Exhibit D.
DPPD stated that the applicant was evaluated, boarded, found
unfit and rated based upon the "back pain, associated with spinal
stenosis and disk herniation". Thus, only the back pain was
rated, since that was the condition which rendered him unfit.
The mere existence of a medical condition does not mean that
condition is unfitting. To be unfitting, the condition must be
such that it renders the person unable to perform duties that
would normally be expected of their rank and grade. The record
clearly shows that the other conditions were not unfitting at the
time he was evaluated (hip pain, hearing loss, tinnitus (ringing
in the ears) , hypertension (high blood pressure) , hyperlipidemia
(high cholesterol readings) , anxiety and depression). Since the
medical personnel who initiated the MEB did not deem these of
sufficient severity to potentially render the member unfit, they
were not listed on the MEB. Additionally, when the various
boards (Informal and Formal Physical Evaluation Boards and the
Air Force Personnel Board) reviewed the case and the member's
appeal, they did not find these conditions to be unfitting at
that time. Simply because these conditions were rated by the DVA
as medical conditions connected to the applicant's military
service does not mean these are unfitting conditions.
DPPD stated that the reason why an applicant could receive =
noticeably different disability ratings from the Air Force and
the DVA lies in understanding the differences between title 10,
USC, and Title 38, USC. Title 10, USC, Chapter 61, is the
federal statute that charges the Service Secretaries with
maintaining a fit and vital force. Once the individual is found
unfit, the degree of disability is based upon the member's
condition at the time of permanent disposition and not upon
possible future events.
Title 38, USC, governs the DVA
compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation
for conditions that are not unfitting for military service. DPPD
6
94- 03531
stands by their previous advisory opinion that the applicant was
appropriately processed and rated by the physical disability
system.
A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D-1.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Counsel reviewed the additional advisory from DPPD and stated
that the applicant was hospitalized for anxiety/depression while
awaiting the Formal PEB to convene. The Air Force violated its
own policy since the applicant's unit of assignment failed to
notify the MEB of applicant's change in status. Counsel argues
that this may have been material in the outcome of the decision
and a medical evaluation for a mental condition by the Air Force
may have been appropriate to determine the severity of the
disability. The Air Force simply denied the disability even
existed although the evidence provided by applicant proved
otherwise. The Review Board attempts to intertwine disabilities
basing their rationale in rating separate and distinct
disabilities as pyramiding. Counsel argues a back condition and
a mental condition have no direct relationship and must be rated
separately. Both conditions would find the member unfit for
further service. The injury in service to applicant's back only
triggered an underlying condition to manifest itself to such a
severity discharge and retirement was warranted for both
conditions. The Air Force again opines in their 24 April 1996
memorandum to the Board that "Then, only the back pain was rated,
since that was the condition that rendered him unfit.', Counsel
contends that the condition of pain in and of itself is not a
ratable entity under the law. Applicant's back condition, at the
time of separation, was 'Lumbar Trauma to disc L5-S1, L4-5, L3-4,
L2-3, LI-2, with sciatic radiculopathy, nerve system involvement
and pain associated with an injury of such magnitude." Relevant
to this issue is also Pelvic Girdle Trauma sustained, which is
rated separate and distinct; however, this condition
significantly aggravates and contributes to the overall severity
of the disability to the back. This does not pyramid the rating
system; rather, it effectively and efficiently evaluates the
unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to
unfitness, which are considered in arriving at a rated degree of
incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability.
Title 10, USC, Chapter 61, charges Service Secretaries with
maintaining a fit and vital force. For an individual to be
unfit, there may be a combination of disabilities which renders a
person unfit and not merely a single disabling defect. Counsel
does not choose to analyze the differences between Title 10, USC,
and Title 38, USC. Instead, he carefully points out the strong
relationship between the two, which was the intent in origin. In
this case, the degree of disability requested is based upon the
member's condition at the time of permanent disposition. Where
it is optioned or otherwise directed to discharge a member from a
7
94- 03531
military service, a11 disabilities of ratable quality should be
given adequate consideration in the disability percentage as it
relates to a member‘s fitness for duty. Counsel concluded that,
the applicant was not appropriately processed or rated in
accordance with service requirements to meet its obligation in
rating a11 disabilities which find him unfit for service and
those which significantly contribute to unfitness.
Counsel‘s response is appended at Exhibit H-1.
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the AFBCMR Medical Consultant
and Staff Judge Advocate (HQ ARPC/JA), provided a response to
specific questions raised.
In response to the issue of medical hold, the AFBCMR Medical
Consultant stated that a week after the applicant was called to
active duty (February 1991), he fell in the shower, sustaining
injuries and was treated in the Family Practice Clinic with
medications and physical therapy. Over the next two months, he
was treated as noted, and in April was demobilized and returned
to his reserve unit. He was never put on profile in those two
months and notes indicate that he was having radicular pain, an
indication of more than just a contusion of the back muscles, but
this was never investigated until after his return to his home
unit in New Jersey. He was not put on medical hold or a profile
during his two months of active duty.
The Medical Consultant stated that while applicant was not put on
medical hold, the handling of his injury was not proper. When he
continued to have significant symptoms with pain suggesting
spinal disk disease, he should have had a radiologic
investigation which would have shown what was later found:
multilevel disk disease with spinal canal encroachment by bulging
disks. He should have been Dut on medical profile, and his
seDaration should have been held until resolution of svmDtoms or
referral to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). Applicant was not
placed on profile until July 1991 when he was given a 3 -
T (emporary) which required resolution within a year or permanent
profiling. In September 1992, after extensive evaluations were
undertaken, he was placed in a 4-P(ermanent) status which
initiated the disability evaluation system (DES) referral and his
subsequent separation with severance pay at 20 percent
disability.
The Medical Consultant stated that “The proper thing to have done
was as noted above. When his symptoms did not resolve, his
medical hold should have resulted in an MEB, while still on
active duty.
It is most likely that the DES would have
recommended a period on the Temporary Disability Retired List
under VASRD Code 5299- 5293, Intervertebral disk syndrome, severe,
=
a
94-03531
40 percent disability rated. After an appropriate period of
observation (18 months would have been sufficient to establish
stability of this problem), applicant would have been reevaluated
and then most likely separated with severance pay at 20%
disability with moderate, recurring attacks of radicular pain."
With regard to a separation physical examination (PE), the
Medical Consultant stated that a separation PE was not required
of all Reserve members who were called to active duty during
Desert Shield/Storm. Had the correct handling been initiated, a
PE would have been accomplished in preparation for the MEB that
would have convened.
As to whether or not applicant received proper counseling or
denial of opportunity to establish a claim for his medical
conditions, the Medical Consultant stated that this issue is
somewhat moot.
The applicant did file a claim with the
Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA). He had previously filed a
claim with the DVA in January 1981, after his initial tour on
active duty from 11 October 1976 to 1 May 1980, so he was aware
of the availability of such recourse.
With regard to whether or not the Physical Evaluation Boards
(PEBs) were aware of changes in applicant's status, the Medical
Consultant stated that the applicant was evaluated by the Formal
PEB on 9 November 1993 where he made a personal appearance. If
he did not assure that all information on his status was known by
the board, he was remiss in not seeing to this.
By the
applicant's own testimony, he was noted to be working a 40-hour
week in his primary occupation although with symptoms of
continuing intervertebral disk disease.
The Medical Consultant stated that the applicant should have been
medically boarded, found unfit for duty and his name placed on
the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) in April 1991 at 40%
disability (50% base pay compensation) until October 1992 (18
months) when he should have been separated with severance pay
with 20% disability (after reevaluation found his condition
stable). The final determination of 20% compensation is based on
findings of the FPEB as noted above (see Exhibit E).
The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ ARPC/JA, stated that the applicant
was entitled to continuation of pay when he was released from
active duty due to disabling injuries incurred after being
mobilized in support of operation Desert Shield/Storm.
=
JA stated that applicant's back injury interfered with his duty
performance. Despite this, he was not placed on medical hold
This
pending resolution or stabilization of his condition.
action appears to have been consistent with Air Force Reserve
policy then in effect. HQ USAF/REP message of 7 April 1992,
announced the Chief of the Air Force Reserves had directed a
change in policy for reservists who were injured in the line of
9
94- 03531
*
duty while on orders for more than 31 days. The new policy was
that such members would not be involuntarily released from those
orders until final disposition of their case.
JA stated that during the interval between applicant's injury and
his discharge, he received no disability-related compensation
from the Air Force.
JA stated that according to Title 37 USC, if a member was
physically disabled in the line of duty while serving on ordered
active duty, and he was not fit for military duty, then he was
entitled to active duty pay and allowances for the period of the
orders, plus authorized travel time. If the disability continued
beyond that interval, or if it recurred, the member was entitled
to pay and allowances - less the full amount of all civilian
income received for the disability period - for no more than six
months. Under DOD Pay Manual (DoDPM) , Chapter 7 , Section F, a
member's entitlement to these benefits ended with his separation
for physical disability.
e assigned at
applicant shou
a1 sufficient to ascertain
whether his injury would stabilize, and complete his disability
er received a
* processimj if it wouldn't.
JA stated that the applicant was physically disabled in the line
of duty. He was thereby entitled to compensation to alleviate
the financial hardship this imposed on him in both his civilian
and military pursuits. The Air Force denied him what he was due
under federal law. Redress is therefore in order. A complete
copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit F.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the additional advisories from the AFBCMR
Medical Consultant and HQ ARPC/JA and stated that he concurs with
the findings regarding correction of his military records (see
Exhibit H - 2 ) .
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
1.
law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. In
this respect, we are in agreement with the opinion of the AFBCMR
10
9 4 - 0 3 5 3 1
.
c
Medical Consultant (Tab E) that, when the applicant's medical
condition did not resolve, he should have been put on a medical
profile, his separation held until resolution of the symptoms or
referral to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). We noted the
information in applicant's record reveals that subsequent to the
recommended period of temporary retirement and after the proposed
discharge date, the applicant was an active participant in the
Air Force Reserve, earning a satisfactory year of Federal service
for the Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 22 March 1992. In addition,
for RYE 22 March 1993, he was credited with 43 points, and for
the period ending 19 January 1994, he was credited with 18
points. The recommendation by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant was
noted. However, in view of the applicant's Reserve participation
subsequent to the proposed retirement and separation date, which
resulted in his being credited with a total of 16 satisfactory
years of Federal service, we believe the recommendation by the
AFBCMR Medical Consultant's could potentially be the subject of
further in j us t ice.
For this reason, and in view of the
uncertainty with which any actions taken could possibly be
affected by required offsets, we believe a more just solution
would be to correct the records to show the applicant was
temporarily retired because of physical disability on 19 January
1994 (his original discharge date), he be retained in that status
for 18 months, and on 19 July 1995, final disposition was made in
his case (separation with a 20 percent disability rating). As a
consequence of the above actions, based on the implementation of
legislation in October 1994 affecting Reserve member's in the
same circumstances as the applicant, changing his date of
separation would entitle him to request a transfer to the Retired
Reserve Section awaiting pay at age 60 in accordance with the
Early Reserve Retirement Program.
We are aware that the
aforementioned recommendation would render the applicant
ineligible for severance pay. However, due to the circumstances
of this case, we believe any possible injustice resulting from
the Air Force's failure to place the applicant in continuation
pay status would be more than rectified. We therefore conclude
that the applicant's record should be corrected as indicated
below.
4. Other than the aforementioned medical condition, we are not
inclined to recommend approval of the applicant's request
concerning his other medical conditions not being rated. In this
respect, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the
respective Air Force office, HQ AFPC/DPPD, (Tab D> and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The
evidence before us does not substantiate that any of the cited
conditions (hip pain, hearing loss, tinnitus, hypertension,
hyperlipidemia, anxiety and depression) , standing alone, were
unfitting at the time the applicant was evaluated. Therefore, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling
basis to recommend approval of this request.
=
11
94- 03531
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:
a. On 1 8 January 1994, competent authority determined his
unfitting condition, intervertebral disk syndrome, severe, VASRD
Code 5299- 5293, was rated at 40%.
b. He was not discharged on 1 9 January 1994,
with
entitlement to disability severance pay, but on that date, he was
released from active duty and his name was placed on the
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).
c. On 1 8 July 1995, competent authority determined that the
rating of his unfitting condition was 20%, rather than 40%; and,
on that date, his name was removed from the TDRL and, effective
1 9 July 1 9 9 5 , he was discharged from the Air Force Reserve, with
severance pay, or, provided he submits such a request, he was
transferred to the Retired Reserve Section awaiting pay.
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 9 April 1998, under the provisions of AFI
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :
Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
Mr. Gary Appleton, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
Exhibit C.
Exhibit D.
Exhibit E.
Exhibit F.
Exhibit G.
Exhibit H.
DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 94, w/atchs.
Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Letter, HQ AFMPC/DPMMMR, dated 1 5 Dec 9 4 .
Letters, HQ AFMPC/DPMAD, dated 13 Jan 95, and
HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 24 Apr 9 6 .
Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
1 5 Aug 97.
Letter, HQ ARPC/JA, dated 12 Sep 97, w/atchs.
Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 30 Jan 95, 3 Jun 96 and
3 Dec 97.
Letters from counsel, dated 2 Feb 95, w/atchs,
rom applicant, dated
and 5 Jun 96,
5 Jan 98.
//
NRY C. SAUNDERS
anel Chair
12
94- 03531
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, DC
Office of the.Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR 94-0353 1
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction
of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A
Stat 116), it is directed that:
itary records of the Department of the Air Force relating t
corrected to show that:
a. On 18 January 1994, competent authority determined his unfitting condition,
intervertebral disk syndrome, severe, VASRD Code 5299-5293, was rated at 40%.
b. He was not discharged on 19 January 1994, with entitlement to disability severance
pay, but on that date, he was released from active duty and his name was placed on the
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).
c. On 18 July 1995, competent authority determined that the rating of his unfitting
condition was 20%, rather than 40%; and, on that date, his name was removed from the TDRL
and, effective 19 July 1995, he was discharged from the Air Force Reserve, with severance pay,
or, provided he submits such a request, he was transferred to the Retired Reserve Section
awaiting pay.
c/ Director
Air Force Review
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03958
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03958 INDEX CODE: 108.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, Item 10d, be changed to reflect that his unfitting medical condition for his degenerative disk disease was the result of a combat related...
This physician also stated that, when the applicant was in the Air Force, he had a "medical psychiatric disorder." For an accounting of that consideration, as well as a statement of the relevant facts of the case, see AFBCMR 90-01019, dated 21 February 1991, with Exhibits A through G. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Consultant, AFMPC/DPMMMR, reviewed this request for reconsideration and recommended no change be made to the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1990-01019A
This physician also stated that, when the applicant was in the Air Force, he had a "medical psychiatric disorder." For an accounting of that consideration, as well as a statement of the relevant facts of the case, see AFBCMR 90-01019, dated 21 February 1991, with Exhibits A through G. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Consultant, AFMPC/DPMMMR, reviewed this request for reconsideration and recommended no change be made to the...
Based on the applicant’s testimony and the medical evidence, the FPEB supported the findings and recommendations of the IPEB and recommended that the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a 20% disability rating. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating the applicant has not submitted any material or documentation to show he was inappropriately rated or processed under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003423
The applicant requests that his transfer to the Retired Reserve due to medical disqualification be corrected to a discharge for physical unfitness. Notwithstanding the USAR Personnel Command's determination that the applicant's medical disqualification was duty related, the preponderance of evidence shows that it was not. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing that he was found medically disqualified...
The applicant was never recommended for or placed on the TDRL; he was medically discharged from active duty with severance pay.] _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was not discharged from active duty with entitlement to severance pay on 22 Sep 9, but on 23 Sep 99 his name was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired...
He elected retired pay based on the ten percent disability rating; thus, his former spouse received no disposable retired pay. After reviewing all of the evidence, the Formal PEB found the applicant physically unfit for military service and recommended temporary retirement with a compensable rating of 80 percent for the diagnoses of: (1) Primary degenerative dementia with severe impairment of social and industrial adaptability; (2) Reactive airway disease exacerbated by chronic sinusitis;...
Based on the preponderance of evidence, and after a thorough review of the entire case file, the IPEB found that had these conditions been identified and presented to the board in the form of a special review prior to his discharge, they would have acknowledged their existence; however, they would not have considered them unfitting, ratable, or compensable under the provisions of military disability law and policy. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03053
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the evidence of record indicates that the applicant’s back pain, neck pain, stuttering and wrist pain did not warrant referral into the Air Force Disability Evaluation System. The HQ AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 4 Apr 03 for review and response. The discharge...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03497
He contends he was denied promotion twice as a result of being on profile. Upon his return, he was assigned a 3T medical profile, during which his commander submitted him for promotion to CMSgt. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a.