- 

b 

ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  95-00708.  im 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REUUESTS THAT: 

His  records  be  corrected  to  reflect  that  he  was  retired  for 
disability with  a  30 percent  compensable rating, rather than a 
10 percent compensable rating. 

*

?

 RESUME OF THE CASE: 
The  applicant  is  a  former  Regular  Air  Force  officer  who  was 
honorably relieved from active duty on 30 Sep 94 and retired in 
the  grade  of  co.Xone1, effective  1  Oct  94. 
He  had  served 
30 years, 3 months, and 3 days on active duty. 
On  17 Oct  96, the  Board  considered an appeal pertaining  to  the 
applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to 
reflect  that  he  was  retired  for  disability  with  a  30  percent 
compensable rating, rather  than  retired  for  length  of  service. 
The Board  recommended that  his  records be  corrected  to  reflect 
that he was retired by reason o€ physical disability, rather than 
f o r   length of service, with a compensable rating of  10 percent. 
The recommendation of the Board was approved by the Director, Air 
Force Review Board's Agency  on  9  Dec  96  (see AFBCMR  95-00708, 
with Exhibits A through F). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

It  appears  to him  that  the decision by  the  Board  was  based  on 
incorrect  information  from  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs 
(DVA) . 
Furthermore ,  the  decision  did  not  address  his  chief 
complaint  of  chronic  deep  thrombosis  with  resultant  chronic 
pulmonary emboli which  is VA  Diagnostic Code  7121.  It  instead 
addressed  varicose  veins  under  7120.  He  believes  his  appeal 
should  be  reviewed  again  to  determine  if  the  Air  Force 
Compensable rating should be at least 30 percent as he originally 

. 

The DVA  has determined it to be 60 percent disability 

contended. 
for code 7121 alone. 
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit G. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Pursuant  to  the  Board's request,  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant, 
reviewed the applicant's most  recent submission and  recommended 
denial.  In the Medical  Consultant's opinion, no change  in the 
records  was  warranted.  He  indicated  that  while  the  DVA  has 
altered its disability ratings in this case as it is empowered to 
do, such  changes cannot be construed to indicate the same degree 
of  disability  was  found  at  the  time  of  permanent  active  duty 
disposition.  Evidence of record indicates the applicant received 
fair and equitable consideration and compensation f o r   his degree 
of unfitness, and no additional award is indicated as far as his 
disability  retirement  is  concerned.  According  to  the  Medical 
Consultant,  further  review  of  this  case  without  substantive 
evidence  of  an  error  in  the  disability  retirement  award 
compensation would seem to be unwarranted. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Medical  Consultant's evaluation  is  at 
Exhibit H. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

In his detailed response, the applicant indicated that it appears 
that the BCMR Medical Consultant has mistakenly assumed that his 
claim  for higher Air  Force  disability  compensation was  because 
the DVA reevaluated him  for a second time and  increased his DVA 
disability rating supposedly because his condition ha;? worsened. 
However, this is not the case. 

According to the applicant, it was only by chance that. his health 
deteriorated beginning  two years prior  to his planned  longevity 
retirement.  The appearance was that because he was d w   to retire 
soon  anyway,  the  Air  Force  could  ignore  the  sever:t,y  of  his 
medical condition.  If he had been made to medically i - . _ c i r e  after 
his first episode of deep vein thromboses and pulmonar-, emboli in 
Jan 73, there would have been no question that he wou:  have been 
awarded at  least 30 percent  disability.  However, th: A i r   Force 
physicians at that time said this condition was a " f l   e'' at his 
H  was  only 
age  at  the  time  and  would  not  occur  again. 
maintained  on  anticoagulant  therapy  for  three  month  . 
He  was 
unaware  that  if  he  had  remained  on  anticoagulants  3nger,  he 
probably would have been medically retired at that tir. 
In fact 
over the next 2 0   years their were at least two other c- 
sodes f o r  
which  he  was  hospitalized  that  were  more  than  1 
Ly  other 
Unfortunc  ! y,  this 
episodes  of  passing  pulmonary  emboli. 

2 

AFBCMR 9 i  

.,TO8 

diagnosis was never explored and instead his heart was the focus 
of  attention. 
According  to  the  applicant,  he  has  provided 
additional  documentation  not  previously  reviewed  by  the  Board 
which he believes will strengthen his case. 

Applicant's  complete response and additional documentary-evidence 
are attached at Exhibit J. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  In earlier findings, we determined that  sufficient evidence 
existed to support a finding of unfitness, but was not persuaded 
that  the  applicant's  condition  at  the  time  of  his  separation 
warranted a compensable rating of 30 percent.  Accordingly, the 
applicant's  records were corrected to reflect that he was retired 
by  reason  of  physical  disability  with  a  compensable  rating  of 
10 percent,  as  recommended  by  the Air  Force  office  of  primary 
responsibility  (AFMPC/DPMAD) .  The applicant is again requesting 
that  his  records  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was  awarded  a 
30 percent rating.  We have reviewed his most  recent submission. 
However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR 
Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis  for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence which shows 
to  our  satisfaction  that  the  applicant  was  not  fairly  and 
appropriately  rated,  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 issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

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  n o t  
considered with this application. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on  1  Sep 98, under  the provisions  of A F I   3 6 -  
2 6 0 3 :  

3 

AFBCMR  95-00708 

Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member 

The following additional documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I. 
Exhibit J. 

Letter, applicant, dated 17 Dec 96, w/atchs. 
Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Jul 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Aug 98. 
Letter, applicant, dated 15 Aug 98, w/atchs. 

&ENEDICT A. XAUSAL IV 
Panel Chair 

4 

AFBCMR 95-00708