ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-02869
INDEX NUMBER: 108.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her discharge for disability, with entitlement to severance pay, be
changed to a medical retirement, with an 80% disability rating.
___________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
A similar appeal was considered by the AFBCMR on 24 June 1997. At
that time, the Board favorably considered applicant’s request to amend
AF Form 356 (Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical
Evaluation Board) to read: “Disability was the direct result of a
combat related injury - yes.” The Board denied the applicant’s
request for a medical retirement. (Exhibits A through E)
By letter, dated 8 May 1998, applicant requested reconsideration of
her request for disability retirement. She stated she went to her
doctor and provided him with x-rays and a CT scan from the Spring of
1995. He stated that she certainly does have narrowing or
irregularity of the joint space. He also clearly stated there is the
fusion at the L4/5 level and narrowing at the L5/S1 level. This is
definite proof that she qualifies for a 40 percent disability rating
on not one, but two separate joints. Therefore, by regulation, she
qualifies for an 80 percent disability rating and medical retirement.
Applicant’s complete statement, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.
___________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Medical Consultant, BCMR, reviewed applicant’s most recent
submission and opined that no change in the records is warranted and
the application should be denied. He stated the applicant bases her
request for an increase in disability award upon removal from the TDRL
on mainly a single physical finding of disc space abnormality, but
does not equate this to current symptoms, or, indeed, to symptoms and
findings recorded at the time of her TDRL evaluation in early 1996.
What is not considered is the fact that simply having a condition or
disease does not equate to disability, but rather what effect that
condition or disease has on one’s ability to perform duties or to the
limitations it imposes. From evidence presented both at removal from
the TDRL and current examinations, the applicant’s physical disability
clearly does not warrant a change in the degree of disability awarded
by the Physical Evaluation Board in its decision of 15 April 1996.
That she continues to have pain from her back condition is not
disputed; however, the degree of pain she is experiencing is minimal
per her current examinations and statements and something she does not
even need medications to control. Nothing in her TDRL or current
evaluations indicates residual effects greater than those that would
warrant her 20% award. Evidence of record shows that the applicant
was properly rated at the time of her final disposition and removal
from the TDRL. The new evidence submitted with her current rebuttal
statement fully supports this determination.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant disagreed with the advisory opinion and reiterated her
contentions that she has a very valid condition that is disabling and
that will affect her for the rest of her life. She stated she has
proven conclusively time and again that she qualifies for retirement.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit I.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After careful consideration of the applicant’s most recent submission,
including the subsequent medical opinion, we are not persuaded that
she was inappropriately rated at the time of her removal from the
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) or that the assigned rating
was contrary to governing regulation which implements the law.
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. In view
of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence showing that the
applicant was improperly evaluated or that the final rating was
erroneous, we find no compelling basis to disturb the Board’s earlier
decision denying the applicant’s request for a disability retirement.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
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.
___________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 16 October 1998 and 18 February 1999, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Letter from Applicant, dated 8 May 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 29 Jun 98.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jun 98.
Exhibit I. Letter from Applicant, dated 8 Jul 98.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-02869A
Applicant’s complete statement, with attachment, is at Exhibit F. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Medical Consultant, BCMR, reviewed applicant’s most recent submission and opined that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied. From evidence presented both at removal from the TDRL and current examinations, the applicant’s physical disability clearly does not warrant a change in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02049
On 17 May 1996, the applicant’s case was forwarded to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) and they recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating. The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) determines if the servicemember should be processed through the DES when a member is determined to be disqualified for continued military service. As noted by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, the time spent on the TDRL is not creditable...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02040
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRRP states in accordance with 10 USC, Section 1208, the time the applicant spent on the TDRL is not creditable service for retirement. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his time on the TDRL should be credited as active duty time. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01328
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01328 INDEX CODES: 121.02, 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to reflect she was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) effective 1 Mar 99; and, she receive back pay from 1 Mar 99 until the date her name was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired...
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...
They subsequently reviewed and upheld the previous boards’ findings and recommendations and directed the applicant’s discharge with severance pay and a disability rating of 10 percent for physical disability. The applicant was found unfit for continued military service and was rated based on her condition at the time of her disability evaluation. Whereas the Air Force rates a member’s disability at the time of separation.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03260A
On 29 June 1998, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision through his Congressman (Exhibit F). Accordingly, his request for reconsideration was denied (Exhibit G). Exhibit G. Letter from SAF/LLI to C/M McNulty, dated 3 Sep 98.
On 29 June 1998, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision through his Congressman (Exhibit F). Accordingly, his request for reconsideration was denied (Exhibit G). Exhibit G. Letter from SAF/LLI to C/M McNulty, dated 3 Sep 98.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03405
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03405 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her diagnosis of Adrenal Insufficiency be added to her AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, dated 22 Jul 10, and included as part of her overall disability rating. It should also be noted that had...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2003-069
This final decision, dated December 18, 2003, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, asked the Board to correct her record to show that she was medically retired from the Coast Guard on January 9, 2002, with a 30% combined disability rating, including a 10% rating for neuritis of the left external popliteal nerve and a 20% rating for lumbar spondylosis, in accordance with the Veterans’ Affairs Schedule for Rating...