ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01437
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 10 percent disability rating for his disability retirement be increased
to 30 percent.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 19 July 2000, the applicant received a permanent disability retirement
in the grade of master sergeant with a compensable percentage for physical
disability of 10 percent. He completed 21 years, 2 months, and 13 days of
active service for retirement.
A similar appeal was considered by the Board on 5 October 2000. However,
prior to rendering a final decision on the case, the Board recommended that
the applicant be processed through the Air Force Disability Evaluation
System again and that the results be returned to the AFBCMR (see the Record
of Proceedings at Exhibit H).
A medical evaluation board (MEB) evaluated the applicant on 17 Apr 01 and
referred the results to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On
7 May 01, the IPEB recommended permanent retirement with a 20 percent
disability rating based on a diagnosis of chronic low back pain status post
L5-S1 pedicle screw fixation and fusion. A letter forwarding the IPEB’s
evaluation, with attachments, to the Board is at Exhibit I.
On 3 June 01, the applicant accepted the most current rating of 20 percent,
but did not concur with the findings. The applicant also indicated in his
letter to the IPEB that he did not want to spend anymore time pursuing the
issue any further (Exhibit J).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S ADDITIONAL RESPONSE TO THE BOARD:
Having been provided the results of the IPEB, the applicant submitted a
personal statement for the Board’s review in which he related his
commitment to military service and the country. He indicated that to be
found unfit for duty and being awarded a 10 percent is a complete
contradiction. He did everything that was asked of him and has been
provided a lot of rhetoric that delays completing the process. He believes
that retired members should be treated with respect for their commitment
and compensated for their ailments as promised.
The applicant’s review is at Exhibit K.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting an increase in
applicant’s disability rating from 10 percent to 20 percent. On 5 October
2000, applicant’s appeal for a higher disability rating was considered.
The Board, after reviewing the evidence of record, determined that the
possibility existed that the applicant’s record may have been incomplete at
the time he was evaluated under the disability system. Therefore, the
Board recommended that applicant again be processed through the Air Force
Disability System prior to making a final recommendation on his
application. On 7 May 2001, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB)
recommended permanent retirement with a 20 percent disability rating based
on a diagnosis of chronic low back pain status post L5-S1 pedicle screw
fixation and fusion. On 3 June 2001, the applicant accepted the rating.
After reviewing this Board’s prior recommendation and noting the current
evaluation conducted by the Air Force, we recommend that applicant’s record
be corrected to show that he received a disability rating of 20 percent at
the time of his retirement. Applicant’s request for a disability rating of
30 percent was considered; however, in view of the findings of the
evaluation board on 7 May 2001 and since applicant concurred with the
rating at that time, we find no basis upon which to recommend a higher
disability rating.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of his retirement on 19
July 2000, he was awarded a compensable disability rating of 20 percent
vice 10 percent.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 10 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
Mr. George Franklin, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit H. Record of Proceedings, dated 6 December 2000,
with Exhibits.
Exhibit I. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 5 Jun 01, with
attachments.
Exhibit J. Applicant’s Letter to the IPEB, dated 3 Jun 01.
Exhibit K. Applicant’s Letter to the AFBCMR, dated 9 Jul 01.
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-01437
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of
Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed
that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of his
retirement on 19 July 2000, he was awarded a compensable disability rating
of 20 percent vice 10 percent.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00350
The Informal PEB determined he was unfit for continued military service and he was then separated with a 20% disability for 5241 Status Post L5 Laminectomy Anterior Disc Space Fusion and Pedicle Screw Fixation with Chronic Pain in Thoracolumbar Spine using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. ServiceVAPEB ConditionCode Status Post L5 Laminectomy Anterior Disk Space Fusion And Pedicle Screw Fixation With...
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant the applicant’s evaluation through the Air Force Disability Evaluation System. Furthermore, the applicant contends that since his records were incomplete at the time of the evaluation, his complete record was not reviewed. GREGORY H. PETKOFF Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-01437 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00777
The CI’s treating neurosurgeon five months prior to separation documented that the CI had severe degenerative changes and injury was likely to leave the CI with chronic back pain, limited mobility and physical disability. 5292 Spine, limitation of motion of, lumbar: There was no clear mechanism to separate out the CI’s radicular pain from his unfitting back condition and the primary focus on medical evaluations was the CI’s back and S1 radiating pain conditions.
Based on the firm statement of the FPEB, the evidence of record supports the contention that the applicant was rated properly and that no injustice occurred in his separation processing upon which to recommend favorable consideration of his present request. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607789C070209
On 8 July 1992 a medical board report at the Portsmouth Naval Hospital diagnosed the applicants condition as L5-S1 spondylolisthesis, status post L5-S1 fusion with simmons pedicle instrumentation and right iliac crest bone grafting with intermittent radiculopathy; early cataracts; multiple degenerative joint disease including elbows, knees, and spine with noted positive rheumatoid factor; chest pain with non-diagnostic but abnormal thallium treadmill, followed by coronary catheterization...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC 2008 03855
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03855 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to show he completed 20 years of active duty and his disability retirement changed to a longevity retirement so he can qualify for benefits under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act or for...
However, after a review of the available evidence, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to raise doubt whether the accident occurred as a result of the applicant’s intentional misconduct or willful neglect. While he did not interview the applicant, as required by regulation and resulted in a determination that the investigation was legally insufficient, based on his discussion with the applicant’s first sergeant, he choose to believe the applicant’s version of the event. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00064
The Board further noted that after the applicants injury in Germany, he was returned to full duty after receiving occupational therapy, and that his recent injury happened during civilian employment, and therefore was EPTS. The second injury to the members wrist occurred in civilian status in 2005, and is therefore not service connected. The complete BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01101
Post-Separation) All Effective Date 20020614 Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam Back Pain 5299-5295 10% L4-L5 Spondylolithesis s/p fusion 5299-5292 10% 20021227 .No Additional MEB/PEB Entries. VA radiographs (over 20 months after surgery) stated There is wedging of L5. RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CIs prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of her prior medical separation: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING Back Pain After...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02424
The Board noted that the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment and personality disorders, but a determination was made by the evaluator that she did not have a psychiatric disorder that warranted disposition by a medical evaluation board, and that her personality disorder did not significantly impair her ability to adapt to military service. In view of the fact that the applicant’s symptoms were very mild at the time of her mental health evaluation, and the presence of a pre-morbid...