AIR FORCE BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

3AN 2 0 1999 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01000 

COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

PPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
He be retired by reason of physical disability, with a disability 
rating of 30%. 

-~ 

~~ 

-2 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
Several  medical  conditions  were  not  included  in  the  Medical 
Evaluation Board  (MEB) summary. 
The  applicant  states  that  the  MEB  and  the  Informal  Physical 
Evaluation Board  (IPEB) , used only the MEB summary to review the 
physical  disabilities  and  establish  the  initial  20%  disability 
rating.  The Air  Force ult'imately rated him  with  a 20%  lumbar 
spine  disability  because  of  the  injuries  he  sustained  in  a 
vehicle  accident;  however, his  knees  were  also  injured  in  the 
accident  and  he  has  now  been  diagnosed  with  Chondronmalacia 
Patella  which  was  not  evaluated. 
In  addition,  his  neck 
disability  was  not  rated,  and  back  disability  was  rated 
inconsistent  with  the  medical  documents.  Documentation  shows 
that he  has Chondromalacia Patella in both knees, and that the 
knee  problem  was  documented  in  his  medical  records  before  he 
separated from active duty. 
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his medical 
records. 
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 May 1985, in the 
grade of airman first class. 
In the  spring of  1986, the  applicant  was  involved  in  a  motor 
vehicle  accident  in  which  he  sustained  multiple  injuries 
including impending perforation of the small bowel, serosal  tear 

97-01000 

to the left colon and terminal ileum and a fracture dislocation 
of the lumbar spine with a flexion distraction type of injury at 
the L3  level and disruption of the interspinous ligament complex 
between L2 and L3. 
Due to low back pain and right sided buttock and hip pains the 
applicant was presented to a Medical  Evaluation Board  (MEB) on 
8 September 1995.  The MEB  referred his case to an IPEB. 
On  5  October  1995,  the  IPEB  determined  that,  based  on  the 
diagnosis  of  mechanical  low  back  pain  status  post  1986  open 
reduction and  internal  fixation for  a  fracture  dislocation  of 
lumbar spine associated with  post  traumatic arthrosis and  flat 
back deformity with loss of lumbar lordosis, the applicant should 
be discharged with severance pay with a 20% disability rating. 
The applicant disagreed with the IPEB findings and on 20 November 
1995, his case was presented to the Formal PEB  (FPEB).  The FPEB 
concurred with the IPEB findings and recommendations .  The FPEB 
recommended  he  be  discharged  with  severance  pay  +with  a 
compensable rating of  no more  than  20 percent.  The applicant 
disagreed  and  submitted  a written  rebuttal  for  review  by  the 
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC). 

On 6 February 1996, after careful review of the entire case file, 
including  the  applicant's  rebuttal  'and  additional  medical 
documentation, the SAFPC concurred with the findings of the IPEB 
and FPEB, and directed the applicant's discharge with severance 
pay, with a 20% disability rating. 
The applicant was honorably discharged on 1 April 1996, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-3212  (Disability, Severance Pay -  20%).  He 
completed 10 years and 11 months of total active duty. 

The  Chief, Medical  Consultant, BCMR,  reviewed  this application 
and states that there is no evidence to support a higher rating 
at  the  time of  retirement.  The  applicant's  case was properly 
evaluated, appropriately rated  and  received  full  consideration 
under the provisions of AFI 36-3212. 
The Medical  Consultant  notes  that  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  on  future  events.  No 
change  in  disability  ratings  can  occur  after  permanent 
disposition,  even  though  the  condition  may  become  better  or 
worse.  However, Title 38, USC  authorizes the VA to increase or 
decrease  compensation  ratings  based  upon  the  individual's 
condition at the time of future evaluations.  Records received to 
date do not show that applicant has sought disability through the 

2 

.c 

97-01000 

DVA, whose  records  show no  evaluation having  been  done  up  to 
3  May  1996.  Assuming  the  applicant  has  since  sought  such 
evaluation, the  amount  of  disability  compensation' he  receives 
will depend on their findings at the time, and may well include 
conditions  that  are  service-connected  but  which  were  not 
unfitting for his military service.  The action and disposition 
in this case are proper  and  reflect  compliance with Air  Force 
directives  which  implement  the  law.  Therefore, based  on  the 
evidence provided, the  Medical  Consultant  recommends denial  of 
the applicant's  request. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The Chief, Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this 
application  and  states  that  they  concur  with  the  Medical 
Consultant's  advisory opinion.  The  record  clearly  shows  that 
while  the  applicant  may  have  been  treated  for various medical 
conditions besides his back pain while on active duty, none were 
serious enough to render him unfit for further military service 
under the provisions of disability law and policy.  The fsct that 
a person  may  have  a medical  condition does not  mean  that  the 
condition  is  unfitting  for continued  military  service.  To be 
unfitting, the condition must be such that it alone precludes the 
member from fulfilling the purpose for which he is employed.  If 
the  board  renders  a  finding  of  unfit,  the  law  provides 
appropriate  compensation  due  to  the  premature  termination  of 
their career.  Furthermore, it must be noted that USAF disability 
boards must  rate disabilities based upon the member's  condition 
at  the  time  of  evaluation;  in  essence  a  snapshot  of  their 
condition  at  that  time.  Under  Title  3 8 ,   the  Department  of 
Veterans Affairs may  rate any service-connected condition based 
upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the 
severity of a condition.  This often results in different ratings 
by  the  two  agencies.  This,  in  itself,  is  not  sufficient  to 
warrant a change in the rating assessed under Title 10, USC.  All 
pertinent  medical  evidence  establishes  that  the  applicant  was 
properly found unfit for military duty and awarded an appropriate 
rating for his  disability at  the  time  of  his  separation.  The 
applicant has not submitted any material or documentation to show 
that he improperly rated o r   otherwise improperly processed at the 
time  of  his  discharge.  Therefore, they  recommend  denial  of 
applicant's request. 
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLT CANT ' S   REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that 
he  sent copies of his medical records with requests for another 
opinion  and  interpretation  of  his  condition  to  the  Chief 
Orthopedic Surgeon and his care provider at  the  time, and  also 
the spine specialist.  Neither physician responded.  Finally, he 

3 

97-01000 

sent  a  similar  request  to  the  associate  physician  for  his 
original  spine  surgery  in  1986.  The  physician  responded  by 
stating that he was only the assistant on his surgery in 1985, 
and he  (the applicant) should contact the primary surgeon for his 
questions. 

The applicant  states that he did  find a copy of  a 4T profile, 
dated  11  July  1986,  written  by  the  Chief  Orthopedic  Surgeon. 
According to the PEB Liaison officer (PEBLO) at Hill AFB, the Air 
Force made a mistake because a 4T profile requires a person to 
have  a medical  board  at  that  time, but  that  never  took  place 
until  1995.  He  states the Air  Force made  another mistake  by 
writing  all  1's  for his physical  profile on  15 December  1992. 
The 1's  represent no physical restrictions, thus qualifying him 
for a remote one-year tour to Korea in 1993 and exasperating his 
physical condition.  A statement from an orthopedic  surgeon at 
the  Ogden  clinic  in  Ogden,  UT,  indicates  that  there  is  a 
misinterpretation of the reports regarding both the myelogram and 
post-myelogram  CT  scan. 
Additionally,  the  surgeon,  upon 
examination, determined  a  need  for permanent  disabled "license 
plates  on  23  January  1996. 
The  surgeon  indicated  that  the 
applicant had  permanent  conditions and  was  severely limited  in 
his  ability  to  walk  due  to  an  arthritic,  neurological,  or 
orthopedic conditions. 
The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached 
at Exhibit F. 

DIDONAL AIR FORC E EVALUA TION: 

The  Chief, Medical  Consultant, BCMR, reviewed  this  application 
and  states  that  the  additional  information  provided  by  the 
applicant  does  not  materially  add  to  the  decisions previously 
reached.  A claim that a 4T profile should have led to an MEB in 
1986 is incorrect, as that profile was given shortly after his 
back  surgery and  valid  for  6  months.  Only when  a 4T becomes 
permanent or exceeds 12 months in duration does it necessitate a 
Medical board action.  As to the additional days lost from work 
presented  as evidence of  ongoing significant medical  problems, 
none of these duty excuses address the reason for their issuance 
except one which mentions recovery time from a spinal tap.  They 
ranged from 1 to 3  days at a time, the 4 of them totaling 7 days 
between  12  September  and  15  November  1995  and  really  don't 
indicate  a  significant  health  problem  interfering  with 
performance  of  duties.  The  issuance  of  an  all  1  profile  in 
December 1992 prior  to his assignment overseas does  fly in the 
face of a permanent 3  (for spine and lower extremities) issued in 
August 1987, but a 3  indicates a condition that does not require 
frequent medical  attention and  also  indicates a condition that 
would not  interfere with performance of most  of  an individual's 
normal duties.  His assignment to Korea was appropriate even with 
a 3  profile, one  that had  been  issued  some  5 years before  the 

4 

assignment  came  up  and  which,  incidentally,  had  shown  him 
worldwide  qualified. 
His  physical  examination  performed  in 
connection with this assignment showed no defects that would have 
precluded that tour.  The applicant contacted three physicians in 
hopes of garnering support for his appeal, none of whom responded 
to his letters.  He furnishes a copy of an opinion rendered by a 
physician  in 1995, information that had  been  considered in the 
previous decision processes and which, therefore ,  is not new and 
material to this review.  Nothing provided by  the applicant  in 
his rebuttal statement adds significant or material evidence that 
would justify a change in previous recommendations.  Therefore, 
the Medical Consultant is of  the opinion that no change in the 
records is warranted and the appeal should be denied. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit G . 

4 

P P J I I T ' S  REVIEW OF AIR FORCE E VALUATION : 
The applicant reviewed the Air  Force evaluation and states that 
the Hill AFB  Physical Evaluation Board  Liaison Officer  (PEBLO) 
told him the Air Force erred by not giving him a medical board in 
1986.  The BCMR Medical Consultant did not remark on the Disabled 
Person and Physician Disability Certification.  In regard to the 
"1"  and  "3"  referenced  on  his  profile,  it  seems  that  he 
misunderstood what  those numbers represented,  He is still very 
confused about  the  medical  board  process.  The physical  exams 
office  at  Hill  AFB  performed  a  records  review  in  lieu  of  a 
physical profile update because his profile stated  "permanent". 
He was  told by  the command section of  his unit  that permanent 
profiles are no longer valid, and was directed to orthopedics for 
an update.  The physical exams office, after the records review, 
said he never had a medical board and was required to have one. 
The BCMR Medical  Consultant gives the impression that a medical 
board was not required.  If a medical board was not required and 
he was worldwide qualified without a significant health problem, 
why did he have a medical board  and why is he not  still in the 
Air Force?  He asks, does the BCMR medical consultant feel that 
reinstatement is a possibility?  Could the Air Force work around 
his physical limitations and use him as a resource to finish his 
Air  Force career?  His  intent was  to perform  any duty  the Air 
Force gave him to the best of his ability.  He wanted to earn a 
career retirement after 20 years of honorable service,  The last 
thing he wanted was a medical separation. 
In further support of  the appeal, applicant submits a statement 
from Orthopaedic Associates, dated 2 April 1998, indicating t h a t  
there is an exam dated 15 November 1995 which is a Myelogram/CT 
Scan  of  the  Lumbar  Spine  which  shows  some  degenerative  disc 
disease post traumatic change, and degenerative arthritic changes 
to  produce  modest  compromise  of  the  L2-3  level  particularly 

5 

-lh 

97-01000 

centrally and right forward, which creates some mild narrowing at 
that level. 
Applicant's  complete responses, with attachments, are attached at 
Exhibits I and J. 

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence  of  record  and  noting  the 
applicant's contentions, we are not persuaded that he should have 
received a disability rating higher than 20% at the time! of his 
discharge. Although the applicant may have received treatment for 
various  medical  conditions  other  than  his  back  pain  while  on 
active  duty,  none  were  serious  enough  at  the  time  of  his 
separation  to  render  him  unfit  for  further  military  service. 
Therefore,  we  agree  with  the  comments  of  the  Chief,  Medical 
Consultant, BCMR  and  adopt his  rationale as  the basis  for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice.  We also agree with the Chief, Medical Consultant, 
BCMR  that  the proper  course of  action for the  applicant  is to 
seek  a  disability  rating  from  the  DVA. 
In  the  absence  of 
evidence the applicant should have been rated higher than 20%,  we 
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought 
in this application. 
4.  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) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

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. 

6 

97-01000 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 1 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Robert W. Zook, Member 
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member 
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner  (without vote) 

~ 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D . 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I . 
Exhibit J. 
Exhibit K . 

DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 97, w/atchs. 
Applicantis Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 Jul 97. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 24 SeP 97- 
 
-
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Oct 97. 
Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Nov 97. 
~ Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 21 Jan 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Feb 9 8 -  
Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Feb 98. 
Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Feb 98. 
Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Apr 98, w/atch. 

-  - -  

4 

L 

- -

c 

THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ 
Panel Chair  a 

7