AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 97-00436
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
I
Applicant requests that his honorable discharge be changed to a
medical retirement. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
_ i
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request
and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C ) .
The advisory opinions were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
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.
-. F-
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. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb,
and Mr. David W. Mulgrew considered this application on
5 February 1998 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
18 Jun 97
97-00436
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: BCMR Medical Consultant
1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records
Applicant's entire case file has been reviewed and is forwarded with the following
findings, conclusions and recommendations.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant was discharged with severance pay on 11 Jan 96
after serving 3 years, 4 months, 22 days on active duty under provisions of AFI 36-321 2. No
Disability Rating (DR) was awarded. He now applies requesting that his status be changed
to medical retirement based on Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) (temporary) award of
100% DR.
FACTS: The records indicate that the applicant met a Medical Evaluation Board on
19 Oct 95, was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), and discharged
with severance pay because of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressive mood
status post-suicide attempt (S&l none) VASRD Code 9440 (?), antisocial personality
disorder, alcohol abuse, and history of suicide attempts prior to service not disclosed at
enlistment. He believes the record is in error because the military evaluated his disability at
0% and the DVA , in an examination on 8 Jul 96 had evaluated his disability at 20%,
increasing this temporarily to 100% for a lengthy hospitalization in Sep-Oct 96. Their
diagnosis was bipolar disorder, a different VASRD code, 9432.
Findings and recommendations of the IPEB were sustained at all levels of review and
accepted by applicant and are well supported by the evidence of record. There is no
evidence to support a higher rating at the time of permanent disposition. His case was
properly evaluated, appropriately rated and received full consideration under the provisions
of AFI 36-3212. Action and disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance with
Air Force directives which implement the law.
DISCUSSION: Once an individual has been declared unfit, the Service Secretaries are
required by law to rate the condition based upon the degree of disability at the time of
permanent disposition and not upon the possibility of future events. No change in military
disability ratings can occur after permanent disposition, under the rules of the military
disability system, even though the condition may become better or worse. However, Title
38, USC authorizes the VA to increase or decrease the VA compensation ratings based
upon the individual's condition at the time of future evaluations.
-:
We recommend denial of the applicant's request. The applicant has not
submitted any material or documentation to prove he was inappropriately rated or processed
under the military disability evaluation system. He was granted all rights to which he was
entitled under disability law and departmental policy in effect at the time of his disability
discharge.
#
A
Directorate of Pen Prog Management
USAF
ivision
On 29 Jun 98, the applicant provided additional documentation through his senator and requests the Board reconsider his requests and award him 100% disability retirement from the Air Force and change his DOR to 15 Dec 81 (see Exhibit S). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, SAF/PC, reviewed applicant’s request and indicated that all evidence of record points to the applicant having been...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1995-02003B
On 29 Jun 98, the applicant provided additional documentation through his senator and requests the Board reconsider his requests and award him 100% disability retirement from the Air Force and change his DOR to 15 Dec 81 (see Exhibit S). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, SAF/PC, reviewed applicant’s request and indicated that all evidence of record points to the applicant having been...
and Exhibit 1, provides the member be rated for each disability and disabling condition. In regard to the applicant's contention that the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) did not consider additional medical addendum and tests scheduled prior to the 24 July 1996 Board, it appears that even though the electrocochleography (ECOG) was not considered by the FPEB, they did consider the applicant's symptoms of chronic disequilibrium and found it not unfitting and, therefore, not ratable or...
conditions AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 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 improperly rated at the time of his removal from the TDRL and permanent retirement by reason of physical disability. 3 AFBCMR 96-01731 At the time of his disability processing, applicant's degenerative polyneuropathy was associated with his cervical spondylosis, but not separately...
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied (Exhibit C). Prior to that date, an evaluation of 30% was assigned for severe, frequent attacks. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, I believe the applicant’s medical condition at the time of his retirement warrants a higher disability rating.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02483
The applicant’s psychiatric condition was properly rated by the Physical Evaluation Board. AFPC/DPPD stated that Air Force disability boards can only rate unfitting medical conditions based on the individual’s medical status at the time of his or her evaluation; in essence, a snapshot of their condition at that time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03279
On 21 Feb 02, the Air Force PEB recommended that the applicant be permanently retired from the Air Force with a combined disability rating of 30 percent. Functional factors to be considered include but are not limited to psychotic manifestations, speech disturbances, impairment of vision, tremors, complete or partial loss of use of one or more extremities, and visceral manifestations. Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the applicant's disability processing...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E. 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. On 6 Dec 96, officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02671
She was granted a 60% evaluation because of her appeal but she is 100% disabled and unable to obtain employment. The Medical Consultant states a review of her service medical records show that at the time of permanent disability disposition, formal psychometric testing indicated her cognitive disorder produced a "considerable" Social and Industrial Adaptability Impairment that correlates with a 50% rating in the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Medical...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant developed a bipolar disorder during the course of her active duty service, a condition which had not 2 AFBCMR 97- 01142 J been diagnosed prior to her service (as suggested by the IPEB) nor which was aggravated by "willful noncompliance" as the FPEB found. The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant should receive relief from the disability evaluation system and have...