AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00067
COUNSEL :
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT:
His release from active duty, with the Special Separation Bonus
(SSB), be changed to a medical retirement.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error
and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission,
which is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant applied f o r separation under the SSB program on 8 April
1992 with an effective date of 31 December 1992. His request was
approved on 13 April 1992 and he was honorably released from
active duty on 31 December 1992. His DD Form 214 reflects his
primary specialty as Y3ervice Operations Officer .
His
performance reports also indicate he had additional duties as
Assistant Mortuary Officer or the shift commander for mortuary
operations in earlier assignments and, in later assignments, he
assisted the Chief of Services in managing mortuary affairs.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application,
extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in
the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this
Record of Proceedings.
A I R FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this appeal and states
that evidence of record and medical examinations prior to
separation indicate applicant was fit and medically qualified for
continued military service or appropriate separation and did not
have any physical or mental condition which would have warranted
?
consideration under the provisions of AFR 35-4. While it can
certainly be disconcerting to deal with [several civilian and
military deaths as assistant mortuary affairs officer] , there is
no record that it adversely affected his duty performance or
psychological well-being during his service years. His other
medical problems were minor in nature and not of such severity to
trigger a physical disability evaluation. He was involved in at
least four motor vehicle accidents (WAS) in a 13 month period
between September 1987 and October 1988, events which were later
considered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) in
awarding service-connected disabilities for traumatic arthritis
symptoms. The Consultant also explains the differences between
the Air Force and the DVA disability systems. He recommends the
case be denied.
A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Chief, USAF Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, also
evaluated the case and verifies that the applicant was never
referred to or considered by the Air Force Disability Evaluation
System. The Chief explains the "presumption of fitness"
requirement and contends the applicant has not submitted any
material or documentation to show that he was unfit due to a
physical disability under the provisions of Title 10, USC, at the
time of his voluntary discharge from active duty. The Chief
recommends the applicant's request be denied.
A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
I
Applicant reviewed the evaluations and provides supporting
statements which he believes demonstrate that, because of the
hated Mortuary Affairs work he did, he suffered from Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) while on active duty. He
provides his ''Stressor Letter," upon which the DVA rated him for
PTSD. He asserts he will always need treatment for PTSD.
A copy of applicant's complete response is at Exhibit F.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
2.
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. After
a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's
2
98-00067
submission, we are not persuaded that his release from active.
duty under the SSB program be changed to a medical retirement.
His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.
We acknowledge the distressing nature of mortuary duties.
However, at the time of his discharge, the applicant was fit and
medically qualified for continued military service or appropriate
separation. He has not provided persuasive evidence showing he
overcame the presumption of fitness and was unfit due to a
disability under the provisions of Title 10, USC, at the time of
his voluntary discharge. We therefore agree with the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has
failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error
or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.
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 21 January 1999 under the provisions of AFI
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
documentary evidence was considered:
DD Form 1 4 9 , dated 17 Nov 97, w/atchs.
Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Mar
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 30 Apr 98.
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 May 98.
Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jpl 98, w/atchs.
The following
Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
Exhibit C.
Exhibit D .
Exhibit E.
Exhibit F.
9 8 .
Panel Chair
3
9 8 - 0 0 0 6 7
Had an MEB been initiated and presented to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) during the time frame just prior to his release, the Board would have found him unfit for continued military service and recommended he be discharged with severance pay with a 20% disability rating. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Claims Branch, Directorate of Debt and Claims Management, DFAS-DE/FYCC, states that after a thorough review of the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03075
Had an MEB been initiated and presented to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) during the time frame just prior to his release, the Board would have found him unfit for continued military service and recommended he be discharged with severance pay with a 20% disability rating. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Claims Branch, Directorate of Debt and Claims Management, DFAS-DE/FYCC, states that after a thorough review of the...
The processing of a military member through the military disability evaluation system is determined by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when the member is determined to be medically disqualified for continued military service. The Director of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DPP, reviewed the case and states that to be eligible for Reserve retired pay under Title 10 USC, Section 12731 the applicant needs to complete at least 15 years, but less than 20 years of satisfactory service, with...
18, itseparation from the Military Service by Reason of Physical Disabilityii, one overcomes this presumption (1) only when the member, because of their disability, was physically unable to perform adequately the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating or that (2) acute, grave illness or injury or other deterioration of the member's physical condition occurs immediately prior to or coincident with their processing for a non-disability retirement Or separation. The applicant's complete...
Following discharge from the service, he has received disability compensation from the DVA and bases his request for records correction on this fact. Evidence of record established beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was medically qualified for continued active duty, that the reason for his separation was proper, and that no error or injustice occurred in this case. 2 A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Disability Operations Branch, USAF...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01002
On 20 October 1982, the applicant submitted a request for release from extended active duty to be effective 1 December 1982. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, states that the purpose of the military disability evaluation system is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating members who are unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached...
On 20 October 1982, the applicant submitted a request for release from extended active duty to be effective 1 December 1982. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, states that the purpose of the military disability evaluation system is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating members who are unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached...
In the applicant’s case, the IPEB and FPEB during their evaluations both determined his condition as “May be Permanent.” The permanence determination of the applicant’s medical condition was based on the preponderance of medical evidence provided at the time of his medical evaluation. However, in our opinion, it appears that with proper rest and therapy, the applicant’s medical problem may have resolved itself within a reasonable period of time, he would have been able to return to his...
On 19 May 97, an MEB found the applicant not world-wide qualified and recommended she be referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). He diagnosed her as having a personality disorder, not otherwise specified, and recommended administrative separation. On 9 Nov 98, the IPEB found her fit with an adjustment disorder which existed prior to service (EPTS) at the USAFA and recommended she be returned to duty.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00085
The applicant’s separation exam on 27 Mar 92 cleared him for separation while reporting a history of pain in both knees, multiple knee surgeries, and that the applicant complained of still having problems. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant advises the mere presence of a medical condition does not qualify a member for disability evaluation. At the time of his separation medical exam, placing the applicant on...