Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1993-00292A
Original file (BC-1993-00292A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                               SECOND ADDENDUM
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  93-00292
            INDEX CODE:  108

            COUNSEL:

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His retirement disability be increased to 100%.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 7 Jul 94, the Board considered  and  denied  applicant’s  9 Nov  92
application requesting, among other things, that his disability rating
be increased to 100%.  After reviewing the  evidence  of  record,  the
Board was not persuaded that he was treated unfairly by the Air  Force
Disability System.  The Board was fully aware of his numerous  medical
conditions and thoroughly reviewed the documentation, to  include  the
medical records from the Department of Veterans  Affairs  (DVA).   The
Board noted that the wording of the Physical Disability  Appeal  Board
(PDAB) findings did not exactly match that of the Air Force  Personnel
Board (AFPB); however, the difference was not significant  because  it
would not have resulted in a change to the overall  rating.   Although
the BCMR Consultant believed  that  the  applicant’s  case  should  be
returned to the PDAB so that it might be reevaluated by residuals, the
Board did not agree.  A review of  his  case  indicated  that  if  the
residuals were reevaluated, the disability rating assigned by the  Air
Force would be the same.  In the applicant’s case, the PDAB determined
that some of his residuals were not sufficiently severe to  warrant  a
rating,  but  in  the  aggregate  of  his  condition,  with  its  many
residuals, warranted a  rating  more  than  the  minimum  of  30%  for
multiple sclerosis (MS).  Therefore, he was awarded a  rating  of  50%
(see Exhibit L).

On 30 Jun 97, the applicant requested the Board reconsider his request
to increase his retirement disability to  100%.   On  29 Jun  98,  the
Board denied applicant’s request (Exhibit M).

On 30 Oct 98, counsel for the applicant  provided  documentation  from
the  applicant  and  requested  the  Board  reconsidered  his  request
(Exhibit N).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant reviewed the  documentation  provided  by
counsel and indicated that applicant’s  letter  continues  to  address
concerns for changes of his medical condition that have occurred since
his permanent disability retirement decision and action of 23 May  92.
It has been thoroughly stated in previous reviews  that  such  changes
are outside the purview of the Military Disability  Evaluation  System
(MDES) and that they fall in the bailiwick of the  DVA  to  compensate
according to conditions prevailing at such times as the former  member
receives on-going evaluations.  The applicant seems to not  understand
the difference between the DVA and MDES programs in his persistence in
pursuing his request for a 100% disability retirement.  Having pointed
out that a decision  to  retire  someone  at  a  particular  level  of
disability is dependent on conditions at the time of  that  retirement
and not on future changes in that condition, and that  such  decisions
rest on the relative stability of the  unfitting  condition  that  has
brought on the disability processing, this reviewer cannot  expand  on
the previous advisory  in  favor  of  the  applicant’s  request.   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 Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit O.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluation  and  provided  a  four-page
response (see Exhibit Q).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  We  have  reviewed  the
entire  application  and  the  additional   documentation   submitted.
However,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  a  revision  of  the  earlier
determinations in this case is warranted.  In this respect, we are not
convinced that the applicant’s  contentions  override  the  additional
comments provided by the Chief Medical Consultant, dated 11 Dec 98, in
which he states that it has been thoroughly stated in previous reviews
that such changes are outside the purview of the MDES  and  that  they
fall in the bailiwick of the DVA to compensate according to conditions
prevailing at such  times  as  the  former  member  receives  on-going
evaluations.  The  Chief  states  that  the  applicant  seems  to  not
understand the difference between the DVA and  MDES  programs  in  his
persistence in pursuing his request for a 100% disability  retirement.
He also states that having pointed  out  that  a  decision  to  retire
someone at a particular level of disability is dependent on conditions
at the time of that retirement and  not  on  future  changes  in  that
condition.  In view of the above and in the absence of more persuasive
evidence, we again find no compelling basis to recommend granting  the
relief sought.

2.    The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have  materially  added
to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a  hearing  is  not
favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 6 April and 5 May 1999, under the  provisions  of
Air Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member
                  Ms. Sophie Clark, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit L.  ROP, dated 7 Jul 94, w/atchs.
     Exhibit M.  Addendum to ROP, dated 14 Aug 98.
     Exhibit N.  Letter fr counsel, dated 30 Oct 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit O.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 11 Dec
                   98.
     Exhibit P.  Letter, AFBCMR, 11 Dec 98.
     Exhibit Q.  Letter fr counsel, dated 26 Apr 99



                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9300292A

    Original file (9300292A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 Oct 98, counsel for the applicant provided documentation from the applicant and requested the Board reconsidered his request (Exhibit N). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant reviewed the documentation provided by counsel and indicated that applicant’s letter continues to address concerns for changes of his medical condition that have occurred since his permanent disability retirement decision and action...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9300292

    Original file (9300292.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence of error or irregularity in che award of Ehis rating given the applicant’s condition at that point in time. The Medical 2 .‘ consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit I. AFBCMR 93-00292 APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a copy of applicant’s bone density report (see Exhibit K) .

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900376

    Original file (9900376.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The FPEB determined that applicant did not demonstrate any evidence of complete bony fixation of the spine, therefore, use of the VA d. c. of 5286 was inappropriate at the time. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant states that all aspects of the applicant’s case were thoroughly reviewed in the disability evaluation system (DES) processing that evolved through all levels of review, and the applicant’s separation with severance pay was completely justified by that review and the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9502003B

    Original file (9502003B.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 Jun 98, the applicant provided additional documentation through his senator and requests the Board reconsider his requests and award him 100% disability retirement from the Air Force and change his DOR to 15 Dec 81 (see Exhibit S). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, SAF/PC, reviewed applicant’s request and indicated that all evidence of record points to the applicant having been...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1995-02003B

    Original file (BC-1995-02003B.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 Jun 98, the applicant provided additional documentation through his senator and requests the Board reconsider his requests and award him 100% disability retirement from the Air Force and change his DOR to 15 Dec 81 (see Exhibit S). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, SAF/PC, reviewed applicant’s request and indicated that all evidence of record points to the applicant having been...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03077

    Original file (BC-2007-03077.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although service connection has been established by the DVA and the applicant has reportedly been awarded a disability rating of 100 percent, there is no compelling evidence the applicant’s arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevented him from reasonably performing the duties of his office, grade, rank and rating during the period of his military service and at the time of his retirement. Nonetheless, acknowledgment of the radiographic evidence of the ASCVD prior to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1998-01124C

    Original file (BC-1998-01124C.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The decision noted the treatment for anxiety in the service and the 22 May 04 opinion of a DVA examination that concluded the applicant suffered from schizophrenia either during his military service or, more likely, in the year following military service in 1976. In a DD Form 149 dated 2 Sep 04, the applicant requested reconsideration, and submitted his 100% DVA rating for service- connected schizophrenia, 24 years after his discharge from the Air Force. The Consultant provided additional...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9503647A

    Original file (9503647A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the BCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed the applicant’s most recent submission and recommended denial. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While perhaps correctly noting that no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1995-03647A

    Original file (BC-1995-03647A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the BCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed the applicant’s most recent submission and recommended denial. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While perhaps correctly noting that no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02719

    Original file (BC-2011-02719.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02719 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His permanent compensable disability rating of 30 percent should be increased to 50 percent and made retroactive to his retirement date. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on the available...