AIR  F O R C 2   BOARC FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORE  0” F‘ROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET  NUMBER:  97-02586 

COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED: Y e s  

JUN  2 5  

__ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

1. The  full  extent  of  his  disabilities  at  the  time  of  his 
retirement be appropriately reevaluated. 

2. He be awarded the Medal of Honor, 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The reasons  the applxant believes  the  records to be  in error or 
unjust and the evidence submimed in support of  the appeal are at 
Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS : 
The  relevant  facts pex-raining to chis application, extracted  from 
the  applicant’s military  records,  are  contained  in  the  letter 
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.  Accordingly, 
’there  i s   no  need  to  recite  these  facts  i n   tnis  Record  of 
Proceedings. 

AIR  FORCE EVALUATION: 

‘The Chief Medical  Zonsultant, AFBCMR, reviewed the appllcatlon and 
states a review of medical  records does not  disclose any evidence 
to suppm-t  correctlon st records from iength of service retirement 
tc  disabilxy  retirement. 
EvLdence  of  recorc  and  medical 
exarcinazlons  prior  to  ret,irement ir,dicate t h e   app--;cant was  fit 
anci  nedically  qualified  f o r   conzinued military  sei---ice, retentlon 
01- a p p x p r - a t e   separatioa and aid not  have  ally  phy,=ic:al or mental 
d e f e z t s   whi-:?  w s c l - J   nave  wari-anted  ccnsidel-at:sn  undel-  zne 
pl-z-,r:s:2:ls 
p e s - m p t l c n  of f i x e s s   x a t  w m ~ d  :lave  m-icyl-lred E -  LIII~TLOII 
~ l n d c  
tne  disabiiity  e v a l K 2 t l c n   s y s t e r   an3 c o n s i a e ~ - a t l o : - -  for-  a  meaica- 
retirement  TAW  AFR  35-4.  Retirement  f o r   _ e n g t l ?   of  sex-v;ce 

Ee,  -  i - _ ~ ~ - c ~ o r e ,  L
c

Yf  AFi? 

z - , ~ e  

IS 

5 :  

’ 2 .  

~

 t 

97-02536 

proper  anc  13 accordance  w ~ t i :   Air  Force  directives  which  the 
implement.  The  Department  e?  Vezerans  Affairs  is  carged with 
evalcacing  conditions  that,  while  not  unfitting  for  military 
service, may progress with  tirr,e ana alter an  individual's ability 
to  function  and  to  be  gainfully  employed,  and  to  compensate 
eligible  veterans  f o r   such  service-connected disabilities  as  has 
occurred  in this case.  The Medical  Consultant  is of  the-  opinion 
that  no  change  in  the  records  is  warranted  and  the  application 
should be denied. 

A complete copy of the evaluatior_ is at Exhibit C .  

The  Chief,  USAF  Physical  Disability  Division, Dir  of  Pers  Prog 
Mgt, AFPC/DPPD,  reviewed  the  application  and  states  they  verify 
that  the  applicant  was  not  referred  to  or considered  by  the Air 
Force  Disability  System  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  35-4.  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  cf  the  grade, office, rank  or  rating.  Thcse  members  who 
are  separated or retired by  reason of  physical  disability  may  be 
eligible, for certain  disability  compensations.  Eligibility  f o r  
disability processing  is established by a Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB)  when  the  board  finds  that  the  member  may  not  be  qualified 
f o r   continued military service.  The  decision to conduct an MEB  is 
made  by  the  medical  treatmen:  facility  providing  zare  tc  the 
member.  Applicant has not  submitted any material OY  documentation 
to  show that  he  was  unfit  for  continued  military  service  at  che 
time  of  his  voluntary  retirement.  They  recommend  denial  of  the 
applicant's request. 

A complete copy of the evahiaxon 1s at Exhibit D. 

The  applicant  reviewed  t h e   AL 
1 :ox-ze  evaluations  m c  states  hls 
requested  action  Is  t h a t   t ile  ruli  extent  of  his  disabilities  at 
the  time  of  his  retirement  LE 
He 
understands  the  relevance/ir~-ele~~ance of  Veterans  Administration 
(VA) physical  examinat ions  a m   ?T.mi7dations of  service  conpected 
disabilities.  It is nis conte:itis.=:  :hat  all of the conditions and 
service  connected disabilizies  found.  by  the  VA  were  :rL  existence 
at  the time of  his r e t i ~ ~ n i e n ~  
s::sulci  have  been sc acknowledged 
- p - t   - 
ny t n e   ;Jriited  States k,r 

appropriately  reevaluated. 

<:I? 
- 
r s z c c   1: 

-  - -  

- A L z L -  

_ITIF.. 

97-02536 

ADDITIOXAL AIR  FORCE  EVALUATION. 
The  Recognition  Programs  Branch,  Promotions, Eva1  &  Recognition 
Div, AFPC/DPPPRA,  reviewed  the  application  and  states  that  they 
believe the applicant was merely maKing a point, not a request f o r  
the Medal  of  Honor.  It  seems he  wished  to  stress the  fact  that 
higher  ranking officers  (applicant was  a  lieutenant at  the  time) 
broke  under  the  interrogations and wrote  false confessions.  The 
applicant  is  not  eligible  for  any  additional  decorations  for 
having been  a  Prisoner of War, since he  received the Bronze Star 
Medal  and  Prisoner  of  War  Medal,  as  it  would  constitute  "dual 
recognition," which  is not  authorized.  They recommend no  action 
be  taken  regarding the  applicant's statement  regarding  the Medal 
of Honor. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit F ,  

The  Chief  Medical  Consultant, AFBCMR,  review the  application  and 
states  that  records  clearly  show  the  applicant  was  fit  for duty 
through  all  the  years  of  his  active  duty  service,  and,  while 
having  some  residual  problems  relating  to  his  Korean  War 
experiences, he was well and able  zo perform his dEties up to the 
time of h i s   retirement,  He  is being  compensated appropriately by 
the DVA for his  service-connected, but  not unfitting, conditions, 
and no change in his reason for ret:rement  is indicateo.  The BCKX 
Medical Consultant is of the opinicri  that no change in the records 
is  warranted  and  the  applicaticx  should  be  denied. 
Nothin9 
further  can  be  added  to  this  case  review  that  would  change  the 
facts as they exist, 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit G .  

kPPLIC&NT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE ZVALYATION: 

:ne 

sei-~:;cc  w i t 1 1  

t h e   TJSAF. 

The  applicant  reviewed  the A;r  Force  evaluations and  states that 
t h e   intent  of  data,  statements,  a c 3   documentatior- submitted  by 
him,  is  submitted  for  the  sole  prpose  of  informing  reviewing 
authorities  of  the  existence 
disability  known  to  the 
medical  p r o f e s s i o n   f o r   many  years,  inchdin9  the  years  of  hls 
s e r v i x ,   as Post Traumatx Stress 2-sorder and the propensity  al-;c 
hiyr;  FrobabLity  for t h i s   disabiiltv to occur under  circumst-ances 
af  2xti-eme  71-aura ,  w h i c h   h e   expe-ienced  fourfold  dur:Iis 
L:S 
The  d a t a ,   staEemenr_s  3:;; 
wart irie 
oocurnentatiz~: w n i c i :   he has sumuttez are not meant  for the ?urpose 
of  HcrLor.  On  the  contrary, 
of  ~ i s ' i f y i ~ i q  t h e   award  of  E ~ P  Meciz 
i t e m e r i L s   by  Se:lera;  Z - - -,  1 1 -  
uri-encF  and  s 1 qn1f:canc-e  cf 
His 

aurnat ic  E v e n t  s  wi-ich  he  nad  exFc'riencec. 

d s 

retirement pnysical  examination d i 2   n o t   include a_r eva;;ac:on, 
or 
referral for evahac:on  of Traumat:c 
Stress Disoraer ZisEDillties 
irrespective  of  the  fact  that  2xtremely  Traumatic  events  had 
Those  traumatic events are 
occurred during his wartime  services 
a  matter  of  record  now  and  were  so  recorded  at  the  time  of  his 
If  procedures  existed  for 
retirement  physical  examinatloE. 
referral  for  psychiatric  evaluation  of  personnel  having 
experienced  extreme  Traumatic  events,  they  were  negligently  not 
If  procedures  did  not  exist  at  the  time  of  his 
followed. 
retirement  physical  examination,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Post 
Traumatic  Stress  Disorder  was  a  well  known  and  widely  accepted 
medical  fact,  then  the  USAF  was  negligent  in  not  establishing 
those proper referral procedures to do so. 

~ 

A complete copy of  the evaluation 1s at Exhibit  I. 

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 tc excuse t h e   failure to time;y  f ~ l e .  

3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  preserited  to 
demonstrate the existence of  probable error or injustice.  We took 
notice  of  the  appllcant's  complete  submission  ir.  ~udgins the 
merits  of  the  case,  however,  we  agree  with  t k e   opi:?,lor_  and 
recommendation of  the Air  Fcrce  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the 
basis  for  our  conclusion  thaz  the  applicant  has  n o t   Deer,  the 
'victim of  an  error  01-  inlustice.  The  personal  sacrlflce  the 
applicant  has  endured  for his  clountry  is  noted  an3  o u r   dec:sion 
s h o u l d   in  no  way  lessen  his  service;  however,  ins-zrlclent 
documentary  evidence  i l d S   beer,  presented  to  warrant  awarding  him 
the Medal  of 3 ~ t ~ r .  ThereZzlre,  1:;  the absence 05  z v i 5 e x e   to the 
contrary, we  find  n~  cornpe?lirLg Dasis  to  recommend  granting  the 
relief soughc in chis applicatlzx. 

r -  

4 .   The  applicant's case  1s a e q c a t e l y   documented  -irn  1:  5as not 
been shown that a pel-sonal  appe2ra:lce  with or withscat counsel wil; 
materially  zidd  to  Ixn- understandi1:g 
of  t9e  1ssx-3 1  s )   :nvc,~aed. 
Tnerefore, the request f c x   a hziai-mg  is not favorably zonsldei-ed. 

97-02586 

THE BOARD 32TERMINES THAT : 
The  applicant  be  notified  that  tkie  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or inlustice; 
that the application was denied wizhout a personal appearance; and 
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission 
of  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not  considered  with  this 
application. 

- 

I 

The following members of  the Board considered this application on 
4 June 1998 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair 
Mr. Michael P. Hnggins, Member 
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member 
Ms. Gloria J .  Williams, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit I. 

DD Form  149, datec 27 Aug 97, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 3 Nov 97, 
Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 19 Nov 97. 
Applicant's Response, dated 12 Jan 98, w/atchs. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 13 Mar 98, 
Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 Mar 9 8 .  
Applicant's Response, dated 14 Apr  98.