RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02202
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected by adding that he suffered from panic attacks
associated  with   multiple   phobias,   including   agoraphobia   and
depression.

His disability rating at the  time  of  his  permanent  retirement  be
increased from 50 to 70 percent, the same rating  awarded  during  the
period his name was placed on the Temporary  Disability  Retired  List
(TDRL).

All back pay associated with the increase of his disability rating  be
made retroactive from the date of his permanent disability retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was no mention of his panic attacks or his agoraphobia.

His disability rating was wrongfully reduced by 20 percent.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, and extracts from his military and medical records.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letters  prepared  by  the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air  Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record  of
Proceedings.

A Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision,  dated  25 May
85, reflected that the applicant was  granted  service-connection  for
degenerative dementia, presenile, competent.  The  compensable  rating
awarded was 30 percent, with an effective date of 2 Feb 85.   The  DVA
has indicated that the claim was reopened in 1989 and  another  rating
was done on 6 Sep 89 to continue and confirm  the  previous  diagnosis
with no change in rating.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed  this  application  and
indicated that it is his opinion that the applicant’s requested relief
should  be  granted  in  full,  increasing  his  level  of  disability
retirement pay  and  making  retroactive  payment  of  the  difference
between his allowed 50  percent  compensation  and  the  corrected  70
percent this decision would allow to his date of retirement.

The Medical Consultant noted that the applicant first  met  a  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) on  18  Dec  84  after  developing  significant
psychological problems stemming from a lengthy and acrimonious  period
following the death of his  three  year  old  son  from  complications
resulting from what was eventually determined to be  accidental  burns
suffered in a bathing accident that originally caused the applicant to
be under suspicion for child neglect or abuse.  The applicant’s mental
state rapidly declined, and the MEB concluded he suffered from  severe
pre-senile dementia  (Alzheimer's  Disease).   Upon  referral  to  the
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) a decision to  place  him  on
the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) was made, and he remained
on this list at 70 percent disability from 1 Feb 85 until reevaluation
in 1987.  The original impression of Alzheimer's was later  overturned
in favor of a diagnosis of panic disorder with agoraphobia,  and  this
was constant throughout the remainder of  his  disability  evaluation.
Upon reevaluation in late 1987, the  examining  physician  noted  some
improvement in his overall state,  but  still  remarked  that  he  was
markedly impaired for social and industrial function.  This review was
considered by the IPEB on 24 Dec 87 who, in spite of their  conclusion
that  he  suffered  “severe  industrial   impairment,”   reduced   his
disability  level  to  50%  and   recommended   permanent   disability
retirement, which decision was supported through all levels of review.
 Apparently the examiner’s statement that “there appears  to  be  some
improvement (e.g., ability to leave home  and  occasional  ability  to
travel in the local community)” weighed heavily on the PEB’s  decision
even  though  the  applicant’s  “normal  activities  remain   severely
constricted.”

According to the Medical Consultant, the records appeared to  indicate
an injustice was perpetrated at the time the applicant was permanently
retired.  In his view, the records were clear in showing his condition
was “severe” for social and industrial impairment, a decision that was
annotated by the IPEB in their final evaluation of Dec 87.   In  spite
of this determination, this body  reduced  the  applicant’s  level  of
disability from 70 percent to 50 percent even though the “improvement”
mentioned  by  the  examining  physician  was  negligible  and   still
qualified  him  for  the  “severe”  category   of   dysfunction.    No
substantive reasoning was  found  to  warrant  the  lowered  level  of
compensation, and the final award clearly constituted  injustice  from
the disability evaluation system.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application
and  recommended  denial.   DPPD  noted   that   the   applicant   was
involuntarily released from active duty on 1 Feb  85  for  a  physical
disability and his name was placed on the TDRL under the provisions of
AFR 35-4.  He remained on the TDRL until 4 Feb 88, at  which  time  he
was permanently retired with  a  50 percent  disability  rating.   The
applicant completed a total of 14 years, 5 months, and 1 day of active
federal military service.

According to DPPD, the purpose of the military  disability  evaluation
system is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating or  retiring
members who are unable to perform the duties of their  office,  grade,
rank or rating.  Those members who are separated or retired by  reason
of a physical  disability  may  be  eligible  for  certain  disability
compensations.  The decision to process a member through the  military
disability evaluation system is determined  by  a  Medical  Evaluation
Board (MEB) when he or she is determined  medically  disqualified  for
continued military service.  The decision to conduct an MEB is made by
the medical treatment facility providing health care to the member.

Disability records reflect the applicant was presented before  an  MEB
on 18 Dec 84, and referred to the Informal Physical  Evaluation  Board
(IPEB).  Upon reviewing his case, the Board found the member unfit for
continued military service for a  diagnosis  of  primary  degenerative
dementia,  presenile  onset,  with  a  severe  social  and  industrial
adaptability impairment.  His  mild  condition  for  exercise  induced
asthma was also considered; however, it was not found to be  unfitting
at  the  time  of  the  MEB.  Following  their  assessment,  the  IPEB
recommended to the Physical Review Council (PRC) that he be placed  on
the TDRL with a 70 percent disability rating.  Subsequently,  the  PRC
agreed with the IPEB findings.  The applicant agreed with the findings
of the PEB and officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air
Force directed that he be placed on TDRL with a 70 percent  disability
rating under the provisions of Title 10,  United  States  Code  (USC),
Section 1202.

DPPD indicated that  under  Title  10,  USC,  Section  1210,  the  law
requires reexamination  of  all  TDRL  members  at  least  once  every
18 months to determine if there has been a change  in  the  disability
that resulted in their placement on the TDRL.  The  records  reflected
that the applicant received two TDRL examinations on 21 Mar 86  and  5
Nov 87, respectively.  Following the initial examination, his  medical
condition  was  still  considered  unstable  by  the  PEB   and   they
recommended  that  he  be  retained  on  the  TDRL.   On  the   second
examination,  the  PEB  diagnosed  him  with  Agoraphobia  with  panic
attacks, with a severe industrial impairment and recommended  that  he
be permanently retired with  a  50  percent  disability  rating.   The
applicant agreed with the findings of the PEB and officials within the
Office of  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  directed  that  he  be
permanently  retired  with  a  50  percent  disability  rating.    His
permanent disability retirement was effective on 4 Feb 88.

Following their review of  the  Medical  Consultant's  advisory,  DPPD
elected to have the IPEB review the member's disability case to see if
an  injustice  may  have  occurred  during  his  original   disability
processing.  Upon examination of his file, the IPEB concluded that the
member’s medical conditions were properly  rated  under  the  Veterans
Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), and that  all
actions were in compliance with military disability laws and policy in
effect at the time of his disability processing.  The Board determined
that the records clearly reflected that he was  properly  found  unfit
for  continued  military  service  for  his  Agoraphobia,  with  panic
attacks, with a severe industrial impairment.  The  consensus  amongst
the board members was that he was afforded a  full  and  fair  hearing
required under disability laws  and  policy,  and  that  no  injustice
occurred at the time of his disability processing.

In DPPD’s view, the  applicant  has  not  submitted  any  material  or
documentation to show he was improperly rated or processed  under  the
provisions of military disability laws and policy at the time  of  his
placement on the TDRL, and subsequent permanent retirement with  a  50
percent disability rating.

A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that if he  signed  documents
in the past involving his disability percent rating, he did it without
fully understanding what he was doing nor was he  aware  that  he  was
signing  his  rights  away.   At  that  time,  he  was  dealing   with
psychological stress, mental  problems,  harassment,  and  anger.   He
requests that he be granted in full the recommendation of the  Medical
Consultant in the interest of justice.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
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 available  evidence,  to  include  the  recommendation  of  the
Medical Consultant, we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of
the Physical Disability Division (AFPC/DPPD).  The evidence of  record
indicates that the applicant was diagnosed with  primary  degenerative
dementia,  presenile  onset,  with  a  severe  social  and  industrial
adaptability impairment.  He was subsequently found unfit by reason of
physical disability and his  name  was  placed  on  the  TDRL  with  a
70 percent disability  rating.   The  record  also  reflects  that  he
received two TDRL examinations.  Following the first examination,  his
medical condition was still considered unstable by the  PEB  and  they
recommended that his name be retained on  the  TDRL.   On  the  second
examination, he was diagnosed with  agoraphobia  with  panic  attacks,
with a severe industrial impairment.  As a result, he was  recommended
for permanent retirement with a 50  percent  disability  rating.   The
applicant agreed with these findings and he  was  permanently  retired
with a 50  percent  disability  rating.   He  now  requests  that  his
disability rating be increased back to  70  percent  and  the  Medical
Consultant agrees.  However, we are just not convinced that  an  error
or injustice has occurred in this case.  We note  that  following  the
Medical Consultant’s assessment of the appeal, in which  he  indicates
that an injustice appears to have been perpetrated  at  the  time  the
applicant was permanently retired, AFPC/DPPD had the IPEB  review  the
applicant’s case to determine if an injustice may have occurred during
his  original  disability  processing.   They   concluded   that   the
applicant’s medical  conditions  were  properly  rated  and  that  all
actions were in compliance with military disability laws and policy in
effect at the time.  The board’s consensus was that the applicant  was
afforded a full and fair hearing and that no injustice occurred at the
time of his disability processing.  In view of the foregoing,  and  in
the absence of clear and convincing evidence that  the  applicant  was
improperly diagnosed and rated, we  adopt  AFPC/DPPD’s  rationale  and
conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief  sought
in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 5 Mar 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
      Ms. Margaret A. Zook, Member
      Mr. Daniel F. Wenker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 13 Nov 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 30 Nov 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Dec 00.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, undated.




                                   KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                                   Panel Chair