RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02599
INDEX CODE: 108.00
COUNSEL: DAV
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her involuntary disability discharge be changed to a medical retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While on active duty she developed a severe liver disease and within one
year of her release from active duty, the Veterans Administration (VA)
established a 30 percent disability for cirrhosis of the liver (not liver
infection). She continues to have flare-ups and set backs due to
increasing symptoms of the liver.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the Disabled
American Veterans, a letter from the Mayo Clinic, a letter from the
Gastroenterology Associates, and medical documentation.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 August 1986 in the grade
of airman basic for a period of 4 years.
On 6 October 1992, applicant was presented to a Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB) at Carswell AFB, TX which referred her case to the Informal Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of Hepatitis, undetermined
etiology.
On 22 October 1992, the IPEB found the applicant unfit for continued
military service for a diagnosis of hepatitis with an undetermined etiology
and recommended temporary retirement with a 30 percent rating. The
applicant did not agree with the findings and recommended disposition.
On 15 December 1992, the applicant was placed on the Temporary Disability
Retired List (TDRL) with a 30 percent disability rating.
On 22 June 1994, the applicant underwent a TDRL reexamination. The IPEB
recommended permanent retirement at 30 percent with a diagnosis of signs
and symptoms consistent with chronic cholangitis and pericholangitis and a
granulomatous hepatitis. The applicant did not agree with the findings and
recommended disposition.
On 20 October 1994, the formal PEB (FPEB) recommended that the applicant be
retained on the TDRL at 30 percent rating.
On 24 January 1996, the applicant underwent a TDRL reexamination and her
condition was found to have now stabilized.
On 8 February 1996, the IPEB recommended discharge with severance pay at 10
percent rating with a diagnosis of Category I; History of granulomatous
hepatitis, etiology inactive sarcoidosis vs. idiopathic granulomatous
hepatitis with associated fatigue. The applicant did not concur with the
recommended findings and requested a FPEB.
On 28 March 1996, the FPEB recommended discharge with severance pay with
10% rating and a diagnosis of Category I: Compensable and ratable. History
of granulomatous hepatitis, etiology inactive sarcoidosis vs. idiopathic
granulomatous hepatitis with associated fatigue. The applicant did not
agree and submitted a rebuttal for consideration by the Secretary of the
Air Force Personnel Council. 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.
Applicant was discharged on 1 June 1996, in the grade of sergeant with a
honorable discharge, under the provisions of AFI 36-3212 for Physical
Disability with entitlement to disability severance pay. She had completed
9 years, 9 months and 6 days of total military service with disability
severance pay.
On 27 April 1995, the Veterans Administration evaluated applicant’s
disability of hepatitis at 30 percent, effective 8 September 1994.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Medical Consultant, BCMR, reviewed this application and states
that all indications at the time of the applicant’s separation were that
the liver disease had stabilized, all liver function tests had reverted to
normal, and the only residual was persistent fatigue. There is no evidence
to support a higher rating at the time of separation. Her case was
properly evaluated, appropriately rated and received full consideration
under the provisions of AFR 35-4. Action and disposition in this case are
proper and reflect compliance with Air Force directives which implement the
law. The BCMR 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 evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Chief, Special Actions/BCMR Advisories, USAF Physical Disability
Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application and states that USAF
disability boards must rate disabilities based upon the member’s condition
at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that
time. Under Title 38, USC, the DVA may rate a member’s medical condition
based upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the
severity of a condition. This often results in different ratings by the
two agencies. This, in itself, is not sufficient to warrant a change in
the rating assessed under Title 10, USC. All pertinent medical evidence
establishes that the applicant was properly found unfit for military duty
and awarded an appropriate rating for her disability at the time of her
disability discharge. A thorough review of the AFBCMR file revealed no
errors or irregularities in the processing of the applicant’s case within
the military disability evaluation system. She was appropriately found
unfit for continued military service and properly rated under federal
disability rating guidelines. The applicant has not submitted any material
or documentation to show she was inappropriately rated or processed under
disability laws and policy at the time of her disability discharge.
Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 21 December 1998, for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the
documentation submitted with this application, the Board is of the opinion
that the applicant was afforded all rights she was entitled under the
disability law and departmental policy. The applicant was found unfit for
continued military service and was rated based on her condition at the time
of her disability evaluation. The Board notes that at the time of her
separation, all indications at that time were that the liver disease had
stabilized, all liver function tests had reverted to normal, and the only
residual was persistent fatigue. The Air Force is required to rate
disabilities in accordance with the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities
while the VA operates under a totally separate system with a different
statutory basis. In this respect, we note that the VA rates for any and
all service connected conditions, to the degree they interfere with future
employability, without consideration of fitness. Whereas the Air Force
rates a member’s disability at the time of separation. Therefore, we find
no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on the relief requested.
_________________________________________________________________
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 17 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, Member
Ms. Leta L. O’Connor, Member
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sept 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Nov 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 1 Dec 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Dec 98.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01313
Sarcoidosis 2. A 10% disability rating was assigned based on the 9434 code and a“mild social and industrial impairment.”The CI appealed and both a FPEB and USAPDA affirmed the 10% disability rating.In December 2001, the VA determined that both sarcoidosis and depression had EPTS and neither had been aggravated by service. SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for AR20130012146 (PD201201313)I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense...
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...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00268
The medical basis for the separation was acute intermittent and chronic right upper quadrant (RUQ) abdominal pain with onset in 2004 following complications of a liver biopsy to stage chronic active Hepatitis C. The CI was referred to the PEB which recessed until hepatitis C therapy was completed. You have taken several medications for pain and nausea. The VA rated the Jan 07 exam as meeting the criteria for " near constant debilitating symptoms causing chronic fatigue, weight loss due to...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00424
Hip Condition . In the matter of the hip condition, the Board unanimously recommends permanent separation rating of 10% for each hip, coded 5299-5255 IAW VASRD §4.40, §4.45, §4.59, and §4.71a. Providing a correction to the individual’s separation document showing that the individual was separated by reason of permanent disability retirement effective the date of the original medical separation for disability with severance pay.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-04657
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) decision should be revisited. On 19 Sep 08, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found the applicant unfit for service and recommended discharge with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating for Fibromyalgia. On 18 Nov 08, the FPEB agreed with the IPEB decision and recommended discharge with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating.
c L/ Director Air Force AIR FORCE IN THE MATTER OF: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00922 JUN 2 5 1998 HEARING DESIRED: YES 1 4 APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The decision of the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) be reversed and she be returned to active duty, with back pay and allowances, and all other benefits to which she is entitled. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and opined that the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01037
The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) found both her military and social impairment to be rated as considerable. Thus, the MEB placed her on the TDRL with a 30 percent disability rating. However, after she was reevaluated, the IPEB found the applicants medical condition had improved and recommended she be removed from the TDRL and separated with a 10 percent disability rating with severance pay. The Medical Consultants complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 01037
The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) found both her military and social impairment to be rated as considerable. Thus, the MEB placed her on the TDRL with a 30 percent disability rating. However, after she was reevaluated, the IPEB found the applicants medical condition had improved and recommended she be removed from the TDRL and separated with a 10 percent disability rating with severance pay. The Medical Consultants complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-00545
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00545 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 40 percent disability retirement rating she received be increased. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the record be changed to reflect the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00552
Both Boards recommended permanent retirement with a disability rating of 40 percent. DPPD therefore recommends his record be corrected to show he was retired by reason of physical disability for fibromyalgia with a permanent disability rating of 60 percent. AFPC/DPPD’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel for the applicant states while the BCMR Medical Consultant’s advisory...