AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

Applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect that 
he was  medically  retired rather  than discharged with  severance 
pay.  Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. 
The  appropriate Air  Force  office  evaluated  applicant's request 
and provided  an advisory opinion to  the Board  recommending the 
application  be  denied  (Exhibit C )  . 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response  (Exhibit D). 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 
Pursuant  to  the  Board's request,  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant 
evaluated  the  applicant's  request  and  provided  an  additional 
advisory opinion to the Board recommending that the applicant's 
request be denied  (Exhibit E).  The additional advisory opinion 
was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for  review  and  response 
(Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

The  advisory  opinion  was' 

After  careful  consideration  of  applicant's  request  and  the 
available evidence of  record, we  find  insufficient  evidence  of 
error or injustice to warrant corrective action.  The facts and 
opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based  on 
the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant. 
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which 
entitled,  appropriate  regulations  were  not  followed,  or 
appropriate  standards  were  not  applied,  we  find  no  basis  to 
disturb the existing record. 

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. 

The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. 
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and 
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant 
evidence  which  was  not  reasonably  available  at  the  time  the 
application was filed. 
Members  of  the  Board  Mr.  Thomas  S. Markiewicz, Mr.  Robert  W. 
Zook, and  Mr.  David  W.  Mulgrew  considered  this  application  on 
15 Apr 97 and 14 Oct 98  in accordance with the provisions of Air 

. .  

Force  Instruction  36-2603  and  the  governing  statute,  10  U . S . C . .  
1552. 

THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ 
Panel Chair 

Exhibits : 
A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinion 
D. 
E.  Additional Advisory Opinion 
F. 

AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion 

SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE BASE, TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPD 

550 C Street West Ste 06 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4708 

3 Jan 97 

BEQUESTED ACTIW:  Applicant requests his Discharge With Severance Pay (DWSP) separation be 

changed to a medical retirement with full benefits. 

FACTS:  On  1 1 Nov 93, applicant was DWSP by reason of physical disability following two years, 10 

months and 14 days of active service. 

WCU-: 

The purpose of the military disability system is to maintain a fit and vital force by 

separating members who are unable to perform the duties of their grade, office, rank or rating.  Those members who 
are separated or retired by reason of physical disability may be eligible, if otherwise qualified, for certain disability 
compensations.  Eligibility for disability processing is established by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when that 
board finds that the member may not be qualified for continued military service.  The decision to conduct an MEB 
is made by the medical treatment facility providing health care to the member. 

On 3 Mar 92, a MEB questioned the applicant’s fitness for continued military service and referred his case 
to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) with a diagnosis of “Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome (RSDS) of the 
right lower extremity, ambulatory with aid of a cane, interfering with ability to perform duties.  S/P 13 Dec 91 
implantation of a dorsal column stimulator.”  On 20 Mar 92, the Informal PEB found him to be unfit for continued 
military service, but that his condition had not stabilized to a degree of permanence.  The board, therefore, 
recommended that he be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).  The board noted that both of the 
applicant’s legs were affected by the RSDS and rated him accordingly (bilateral ratings of 20 percent for each leg). 
The board recommended a compensable percentage rating of 40 percent and no other medical conditions were 
listed.  The applicant concurred with these frndings on  13 Apr 92 and on 7 May 92, officials within the offke of the 
Secretary of the Air Force directed that he be placed on the TDRL with a compensable percentage of 40 percent. 

On 18 Aug 93, the applicant’s first, and only, TDRL reevaluation (physical examination), the Doctor noted 

several items:  First, that the applicant could walk for up to five miles, but not run at all;  Second, that he hardly 
required the use of a cane and he was able to perform all basic activities of daily living; and third, that the applicant 
had to be careful lifting objects because he develops lower back pain and that he should avoid twisting and turning 
motions.  On 9 Sep 93, based upon this medical summary, the Informal PEB recommended that the applicant be 
removed from the TDRL and discharged with severance pay at a 20 percent compensable rating. 

The applicant nonconcurred with these findings, and on 5 Oct 93 submitted a letter of rebuttal.  The 

applicant wrote that the examining Doctor stated that the applicant’s condition was “unchanged”, yet the Informal 
PEB recommended a change in compensable percentage from 40 percent down to 20 percent.  The applicant also 
stated that the PEB only rated the problem with his knees and disregarded the back and overall physical difficulties 
resulting from RSDS.  Officials within the office of the Secretary of the Air Force reviewed the case file and 
directed that the applicant be discharged with severance pay and given a 20 percent compensable rating. 

We carefully reviewed the AFBCMR case file and found no error or injustice to merit a change to the 

records.  The Doctor's statement in the TDRL reevaluation summary was not inferring that the condition had not 
changed, but that there were no changes to the physical makeup of the lower extremities (Le., no swelling; no 
atrophy of muscle mass) that would result in an increase to the compensable percentage.  The exact quote was, "For 
the last year, the patient has been quite stable without significant swelling or changes in the lower extremities, but 
with intermittent bouts of pain."  An increase in compensable percentage to 60 percent would have required the 
condition to be considered, "Severe, with marked muscular atrophy" in accordance with the VA Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities.  The references to the applicant's physical ability to perform daily functions and walk for distances up 
to five miles, however, indicated to the PEB that the condition had become less disabling, more consistent with the 
requirements for a 20 percent rating.  The requirement for a 20 percent rating is that the severity of the condition be 
"moderate", which again, is what the medical summary indicates.  The other medical conditions the applicant listed 
were not unfitting at the time of his disability processing  and therefore were appropriately not rated. 

The applicant includes in his argument that the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated him 60 
percent disabled in contrast to the service rating of 20 percent.  Again, the additional conditions that the DVA 
granted to be service-connected were not unfittlne at the time of his disability processing.  The disability laws of 
Title 10, USC require the military services to rate disabilities based on their current condition, at the time of 
disability processing.  To be ratable, the condition must be unfitting,  The mere existence of a medical condition 
. This, plus the fact 
does not make it unfitting.  Under Title 38, the DVA may rate based upon 
that the DVA may perform evaluations at a later point in time, often results in different ratings by the two agencies. 

' 

RECOMMENDATION:  We recommend denial of the applicant's request.  The material submitted by the 
applicant does not show he was improperly rated at the time of his processing.  The RSDS was the only unfitting 
condition and it had clearly stabilized and was appropriately rated based on the TDRL reevaluation summary.  All 
available evidence supports a 20 percent compensable rating in accordance with the VA  Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities. 

Directorate of Pers h o g  Management