AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00149 

COUNSEL :  NONE) 
HEARING:  NO 

Q I 1999 

The  applicant  requests  that  he  receive  a  permanent  disability 
retirement from the Air Force rather than a disability discharge 
with severance pay.  Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. 

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). 
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.  The facts and 
opinions stated  in the  advisory opinions appear to be  based  on 
the evidence of  record and have not been adequately 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. David C. Van Gasbeck, Ms.  Patricia D. 
Vestal, and Mr. Edward H. Parker considered this application on 
5 November  1998 in accordance with  the provisions  of  Air  Force 
Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 ,   and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552. 

L2&Z/Td22 

A D A V I D  C., AN 

SBECK 

Exhibits: 

A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinions 
D.  AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions 
E.  Applicant's Response 

25 February 1998 
98-00? 49 

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 removed from the Temporary Disability Retired List 
(TDRL) and discharged with severance pay on 2 Jan 97 . He now applies requesting that his status 
be changed to medical retirement with 30 percent disability. 

FACTS:  The records indicate that the applicant met a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) on 26 
July 1994 and was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation board on 5 Aug 94.  He was 
assigned to the TDRL with 70% disability for a major depressive disorder on 4 October 1994.  In 
July 1996 he underwent TDRL reevaluation and was recommended by the Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB) for permanent disability retirement at the same 70% level, a 
recommendation he non-concurred with, and he was subsequently directed to a Formal PEB 
hearing which convened on 37  Oct 96.  This Board found him unfit for continued military service, 
non-compliant in overcoming alcohol and marijuana dependence, and felt his social and industrial 
limitations were best described as “mild”. At the time of his hearing, the applicant was holding down 
a full-time job and was felt capable of continuing employment if he were to overcome his drug and 
alcohol problems.  It was recommended he be separated with severance pay and 10% disability, a 
decision he contested but which was upheld by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) in a hearing dated 6 Dec 96.  He believes the record is in error because the military 
evaluated his disability at 10% and the VA has evaluated his disability at 30%.  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.  The FPEB and the SAFPC correctly deducted from 
the applicant’s compensation for his non-compliance in overcoming drug and alcohol dependence, 
in spite of several hospitalizations for rehabilitation, factors felt to be strong contributors to his on- 
going mental health problems.  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. 

Page 2 (Cont'd) 

AFBCMR Case # 98-00149 

RECOMMENDATION: The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is 

warranted and the application should be denied. 

FMDERICK 
Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR 
Medical Advisor SAF Personnel Council 

W. HORNICK, coi., USAF, MC, FS 

98001 49 
. . . . . . . . .  . . . 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

9 Apr 98 

FROM: HQ AFPCDPPD 

SUBJECT 

550 C Street West Ste 06 
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4708 

A  plication for Correction of Military Records P 

REQUESTED ACTION:  Applicant requests that his disability discharge on 2 Jan 97 be set aside 

and he receive a disability retirement.  ' 

FACTS:  Applicant was involuntarily relieved from active duty on 4 Oct 94 for physical disability 

under the provisions of AFI 36-3212, and placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL)). 
Member completed four years, four months, and twenty-five days of active duty.  He remained on the 
TDRL until he was Discharged With Severance Pay (DWSP) with a 10 percent disabiIity rating on 
2 Jan 97. 

DISCUSSION:  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.  Members 
who are separated or retired for 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 care 
to the member. 

An MEB was convened at Eglin AFB, Florida on 26 Jul94 and referred to the Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB).  On 5 Aug 94, the IPEB found the member unfit for continued military service 
for a diagnosis of major depressive episode, without psychotic features associated with panic disorder, mild 
agoraphobia and alcohol dependence, with severe social and industrial impairment; the Board 
recommended he be placed on the TDRI, with a 70 percent disability rating.  Applicant agreed with the 
findings and recommendations of the IPEB and officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force 
directed that he be placed on the TDRL effective 5 Oct 94, with a 70 percent disability rating. 

While on the TDRL, member received a periodic physical evaluation at Scott AFB, Illinois.  Based 
on his updated medical evaluation, the IPEB found his condition had stabilized somewhat, found him unfit 
for continued military service, and recornmended he be permanently retired with a disability rating of 70 
percent.  On 24 Aug 96, the member non-concurred with the findings of the IPEB, waived his rights to a 
formal hearing, and submitted a written rebuttal to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC). 

The member's case file was forwarded to the SAFPC, which upon review determined that a fuIl 

and fair hearing was appropriate and directed the member appear before a Formal PEB (FPEB).  On 

3 1 Oct 96, with the assistance of legal counsel, the member presented his case before the FPEB.  This 
board recommended that he be discharged with a 10 percent disability rating.  The member non-concurred 
and submitted a rebuttal to SAFPC. Upon thorough review of the entire case file, to include an audio 
transcript of the FPEB hearing and the applicant’s written rebuttal, SAFPC concurred with the findings of 
the Formal PEB and recommended the applicant’s discharge with severance pay and a 10 percent disability 
rating.  On 6 Dec 96, officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the applicant 
be removed from the TDIU and he be discharged with a 10 percent compensable disability rating under the 
provisions of 10 USC 1203.  Member was discharged on 2 Jan 97. 

It should be noted that the disability evaluation process is intended to be an iterative one, with each 
board of senior officers considering not only the documentatiodevidence available to the prior board(s) but 
also new information not previously available, Findings and recommendations are made based on the 
preponderance of the evidence available to that board.  As such, it should not be considered unusual when 
a final board decision differs from a prior board, as new facts justify a different outcome. 

A thorough review of the AFBCMR file revealed no errors or irregularities in the processing of the 

applicant‘s case within the disability evaluation system.  He was appropriately found unfit for continued 
military service and properly rated under federal disability rating guidelines.  The member was afforded all 
rights to which he was entitled under disability law and departmental policy.  The medical aspects of this 
case are fully explained by Medical Consultant; we fully agree with his advisory. 

RECOMMENDATION.  We recommend denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant has not 

submitted any material or documentation to show he was inappropriately rated or processed under the 
military disability evaluation system.  Disability retirement of this member would be in violation of 10 
use 1201. 

/ Chief, Physiofil Disability Division 
Directorate of Pers Prog Management 

98001 49