RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02755, Cse 2
INDEX CODE: 108.00
APPLICANT COUNSEL: None
SSN HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His honorable discharge be set aside and he receive a medical
retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has service connected disabilities and should have been medically
retired.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
During the applicant’s military career he was treated for a variety of
conditions. The applicant was diagnosed with testicular cancer in May
1999. In June 1999 his left testis was removed. A lymph node
dissection was done in July 1999 to ensure complete removal of the
cancer--during this procedure his ureter was injured causing removal
of his left kidney.
The applicant was voluntarily discharged on 21 February 2000.
Applicant served ten years, eleven months, and twenty days of active
federal military service.
A medical evaluation board was convened and referred his case to the
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) on 23 August 1999 at
Randolph AFB. On 19 November 1999 the IPEB recommended applicant be
returned to duty. The Special Assistant to the Director, Air Force
Personnel Council concurred in the recommendation the same date. On 1
December 1999, he was returned to duty. His condition was considered
restricting and required an Assignment Limitation Code C - he would be
mobility qualified and could not be assigned outside the Continental
United States.
Upon application to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), the
member was awarded a combined 70 percent disability rating for service
connected disabilities, but he was not awarded a disability percentage
for the testicular cancer.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
The Chief, Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and
states the reason the applicant could be found fit for duty by the Air
Force and later be granted a service connected disability by the DVA
lies in understanding the differences in Title 10 USC and Title 38
USC. Title 10 USC, Chapter 61 is the federal statue that charges the
Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and vital force. For an
individual to be considered unfit for military service, there must be
a medical condition so severe that it prevents performance of any work
commensurate with rank and experience. Once the determination is made
to find the servicemember unfit a disability rating percentage is
assigned based upon the member’s condition at the time of permanent
disposition. Title 38 USC was established because a person’s physical
condition that was not unfitting at the time of separation, may later
progress in severity and alter the servicemember’s lifestyle and
employability. Title 38 USC governs the DVA compensation system in
awarding disability percentage ratings for conditions that are not
unfitting for military service.
The BCMR Medical Consultant, based on the evidence presented,
recommends denying the applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Chief, Special Actions/BCMR Advisories, HQ AFPC/DPPD, also
reviewed this application and states the medical disability evaluation
system is used to determine if the service member’s medical condition
renders him fit or unfit for continued military service. If the
member’s condition is found to preclude him from continuing on active
duty, the law provides appropriate compensation for the premature
termination of the member’s military career. They further state that
under military disability laws and policy, the boards can only rate
those medical conditions which make the member unfit for continued
service at the time of the medical evaluation. The DVA is chartered
to provide continual medical care for veterans once they leave active
duty. Under Title 38, USC, the DVA may increase or decrease a
member’s disability rating based on the seriousness of the medical
condition throughout his or her life
span. Therefore based on the evidence submitted DPPD recommends
denying the requested relief (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
On 2 March 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days. 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. Applicant’s contentions
are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. Title 10, USC, Chapter 61 is the federal statue that
charges the Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and vital
force. For an individual to be considered unfit for military service,
there must be a medical condition so severe that is prevents
performance of any work commensurate with rank and experience.
Evidence of record indicates the applicant was fit and medically
qualified for continued military service at the time of his
separation. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no compelling basis 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 3 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 June 2000, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR, Medical Consultant, dated
17 January 2001.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 15 February 2001.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 March 2001.
HENRY ROMO, JR.
Panel Chair
If it had he would not have separated from the Air Force. DPPRR states that on page 30 of the applicant’s original package, it is clearly documented that in October 1990, the applicant was diagnosed with Sarcoidosis and in April 1994 with Hepatitis C. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s letter dated 13 August 2001 further states that the member was aware of his medical condition at the time of separation. The applicant’s medical records clearly show that he was diagnosed with “Hepatitis C” in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01519
Title 38 USC governs the DVA compensation system in awarding disability percentage ratings for conditions that are not unfitting for military service. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPD states the purpose of the disability evaluation system (DES) 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. Evidence of record indicates the applicant was...
On 20 November 1997, a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) convened and recommended the applicant be removed from the TDRL. The applicant has not submitted any material or documentation to show he was inappropriately processed under the military disability evaluation system or that he was unfit for continued military duty at the time of his removal from the TDRL. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03604
Title 38 USC governs the DVA compensation system in awarding disability percentage ratings for conditions that are not unfitting for military service. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPD states the medical disability evaluation system is used to determine if the servicemember’s medical condition renders him fit or unfit for continued military service. They further state that under military disability laws and policy, the boards...
The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied. The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 February 2002, for review and response. Whereas, the Air Force rates a member's disability at the time of separation.
.The 'appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The medical record clearly shows that while the applicant may have been treated for various medical conditions while on active duty, none were serious enough to render him unfit for further military service under the provisions of disability law and policy. RECOMMENDATION: The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change...
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his retirement, the Air Force should have diagnosed him with diverticulitis. The applicant has not provided any evidence that he was unfit due to a physical disability at the time of his voluntary retirement. Under military disability laws and policy, USAF disability boards can only rate medical conditions based upon the member’s situation at the time of his or her evaluation.
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...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinions D. E. Applicant's Response AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions 10 ADr 97 Memorandum for the AFBCMR From: BCMR Medical Consultant 1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002 Subject: Application for Correction of Military Records Applicant's entire case...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states that evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation indicate the 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 AFI 36-3212. This, obviously, did not apply to the applicant, as he had been found fit to return to...