AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01345 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  Yes  A(JG 1 4  1998 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
The error committed by  the Physjcal Evaluation Board  (PEB) and 
the  Physical  Review  Council  (PRC) in  1963  be  corrected  and, 
instead of being separated with severance pay, his records show 
he had length of service of 20 years and was retired in the grade 
of master sergeant. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The PEB records show that the vision in his left eye was 2 0 / 2 0 .  
The lack of vision in his right eye had been waived in May 1947. 
He  remained  on  active  duty  without  a  break  in  service  until 
placed on the TDRL by the PEB in 1961. Nowhere in the proceedings 
is  this  waiver  mentioned,  although  it  is  a matter  of  record. 
Evidently his complete medical records were not  in evidence. He 
should have been returned to duty, not severed. He had been told 
by his counsel that there was no higher board  to appeal to. He 
thought the AFBCMR was for dishonorable, general or bad  conduct 
discharges  and  did  not  realize its parameters  included medical 
discharges. 
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A .  

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the 
applicant's military  records  (Exhibit B),  are  contained in the 
letters  prepared  by  the  appropriate offices  of  the  Air  Force 
(Exhibits C  and  D).  Accordingly,  there  is no  need  to  recite 
these facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this appeal and provides a 
thorough  background  concerning  the  applicant's medical  history 
based on the available medical/military records.  The Consultant 
states  that  when  the  applicant  first  entered  the  military  in 

i 

1943,  it  was noted  and recorded  that  he  had  had  his  right eye 
surgically  removed  in  1940.  His  only  limitation  then  was 
restriction  from  overseas duties. He  reentered  the military  in 
1947,  with  a  waiver  for his  missing  right  eye  (anophthalmos). 
The  narrative  summary  for  the  26  July  1961  Medical  Evaluation 
Board  (MEB) erred in its discussion and recommendation where  it 
was stated that the Ilanophthalmos was ignoredff at the time of his 
initial  service.  The  problem  was  not  ignored.  He  received  a 
waiver on his  1947 reenlistment for the missing eye. The reason 
for his TDRL recommendation, however, was  not  the missing  eye, 
but rather the disease in the left eye  (chorioretinitis, central, 
involving  macula)  which  was  interfering  with  his  duties. 
Unfortunately, the written report of the PEB that put him on the 
TDRL  is missing  from  the  records available  for review. At  the 
third PEB review in July 1963, he was removed from the TDRL and 
separated with  no  disability  rating  and  $8400.00  in  severance 
pay. The examination he had in April  1963  showed the disease in 
the left eye was %table  and not progressive,I' but because of the 
%lightly  distorted  visual  acuity  in  his  only  eyetf it  was 
recommended  he  be  permanently  retired  [sic] in  spite  of  the 
stability of his disease over the previous two years.  Although 
by his own  admission he was somewhat affected by  this disorder, 
the applicant had been able to continue his duties from the onset 
of his disease in 1958 through his placement on the TDRL in 1961. 
The  Consultant  opines  that  the  applicant  should  have  been 
returned to duty from the TDRL in 1963 by the PEB with what was a 
stable, only mildly symptomatic condition that would have allowed 
him  to  complete a  20-year career and  be  retired  for length of 
service  (LOS). This retirement date  should be  computed and  the 
applicant  should  receive  appropriate  compensation.  Nothing  is 
found in the records that  indicates he was unable  to carry out 
any  duties  commensurate with  his  rank  and  experience  and  the 
stability of  his  disease should have prompted  such a decision. 
Correction is warranted to overcome a long-standing injustice. 
A  copy  of  the  complete  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 

The Chief, USAF Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, also 
reviewed this case and counters the AFBCMR  Medical Consultant's 
arguments  for  relief.  Applicant  contends  that  during  the 
processing  of  his  disability  case, the  PRC  did  not  take  into 
account that the lack of vision in his right eye had been waived 
in June 1944.  A review of the medical board documents within his 
medical  records  make  mention  of  the  applicant's  preexisting 
disability throughout.  He was not  found unfit  for the loss of 
his  right  eye  (which had  been  waived)  but  rather  his  overall 
visual  impairment  resulting from  the  scarring of  his  remaining 
eye and history of recurrent chorioretinitis. The author finds no 
errors  or  irregularities.  The  case  was  correctly  processed, 
applicant's  condition  was  appropriately  rated  and  found 
unfitting,  and  he  was  afforded  all  rights  to  which  entitled. 
Further, this case  is extremely untimely, L e .  ,  34  years since 
the  applicant was discharged.  While  the unfit  decision by  the 

2 

97-0 1345 

PEB  appears  appropriate  and  justified,  any  reasonable  doubt 
concerning  the  applicant's  fitness  for  duty  could  have  been 
resolved by the AFBCMR in his favor three decades ago by allowing 
him to return to duty and demonstrate his fitness. Such an option 
is no longer available.  Denial is recommended. 

A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

~- 

Applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and  provided  two 
responses.  He explains why he waited so long. He agrees with the 
AFBCMR Medical Consultant's recommendation and disagrees with HQ 
AFPC/DPPDIs.  It is easy for HQ AFPC/DPPD to say in 1997 that Ifhe 
wasn't  found  unfit  for  the  loss  of  his  right  eye  (which was 
waived)  .  .  .  . I t   What  that author fails to say, and what  the 
records show, is that the MEB, the doctor, and the PEB, in 1961- 
1963, never did know that his right eye was waived. Further, the 
records show that the chorioretinitis was inactive, stable, and 
not progressive. He argues that he was fit for duty.  Neither his 
left  eye  nor  his  right  eye  fell  under  the  disqualifying 
parameters of AFM 160-1.  The loss of his right eye was a pivotal 
factor,  if  not  the  predominate  factor,  in  the  final 
deliberations. If his right eye had not been considered, and it 
shouldn't have  been  because  of  the waiver, he  would  have  been 
returned to duty. His left eye was fine. He asks to appear before 
the Board. 

Applicant's complete responses, with attachments, are at Exhibit 
F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it  is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
thoroughly  considering  the  evidence, including  the  conflicting 
opinions of  the  Air  Force, we  are  inclined  to  agree  with  the 
AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  that  the  applicant  should  have  been 
returned to duty  in 1963  rather than discharged  for what was  a 
stable, only mildly  symptomatic condition. He  had  been  able  to 
continue his duties from the onset of his disease in his left eye 
in 1958 through his placement on the TDRL in 1961. The condition 
was stable, not progressive, and not  resistive to treatment. As 
for the right eye, which was surgically removed in 1940, he was 
allowed to enter the military in 1943% Ye r--- ' : r e <   : .+Jaivc._I-- F("i 

3 

97-0 1345 

that condition in 1947 and had been found fit for duty each time 
he  reenlisted during his years of service. We  therefore believe 
he should have been returned to duty on 1 August 1963 rather than 
discharged.  The applicant had 17 years, 1 month and 26 days when 
he was placed on the TDRL in 11 September 1961. Since he needed 
an additional  2  years, 10  months  and  five days to qualify for 
length of service retirement, and a member must be retired on the 
first of the month, we recommend applicant's records be corrected 
to  reflect  that  he  was  returned  to  duty  on  1  August  1963  and 
retired on 1 July 1966. 

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 on 1 August  1963  for physical disability but  on that 
date  was  found  fit  and  returned  to  duty,  and  he  continued on 
active duty until 1 July 1966,  when he was retired in the grade 
of master sergeant for length of service. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on  14 July 1998,  under  the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Loren S. Perlstein, Member 
Mr. Dana J. Gilmour, Member 

All  members  voted  to  correct the records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 

A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 97, w/atchs. 
B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Jul 97. 
D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 9 Dec 97. 
E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Dec 97. 
F. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Dec 97. 

PATRICIA J. 
Panel Chair 

4 

97-0 1345 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-0 1345 

BUG 1 4  1998 

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: 

records of the Department of the Air Force relati 
d to show that he was not discharged on 1 
was found fit and returned to duty, and h 

duty until 1 July 1966, when he was retired in the grade of master sergeant for length of service. 

Director 
Air Force Review Boards Agency