RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01545
INDEX CODE: 108.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect that at the time of his retirement from
the Air Force for medical disability reasons, he was retired with a 100
percent disability rating.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a rating
of 100 percent and upon his permanent disability retirement his rating was
unjustly reduced to 50 percent. His complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 Mar 68. He was
progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant, having assumed that grade
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jan 70. On 16 Aug 71, he was placed
on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a 100 percent
compensable disability rating. On 11 Sep 74, he was removed from the TDRL
and was permanently retired with a 50 percent compensable disability
rating. He had served 3 years, 7 months, and 7 days on active duty.
Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant's request and recommends
that his records be changed to reflect that he was removed from the TDRL
and permanently retired with a 70 percent compensable disability rating.
The Medical Consultant states that at his first TDRL evaluation in December
1972, his impairment was judged to have improved to a "considerable" level
and he was continued on the TDRL at the reduced rate of 50 percent. At his
final evaluation in July 1974, his impairment was considered "severe" by
his examining psychiatrist and the PEB decided to permanently retire him at
the previous 50 percent rating, a decision which was upheld by the Physical
Review Council (PRC) on 22 August 1974.
A determination of "severe" impairment would ordinarily warrant a rating of
70 percent as noted in the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating
Disabilities (VASRD) guidelines. While it was appropriate to retain him on
the TDRL at the 50 percent level after his first evaluation, it was not
appropriate to permanently retire him at the same level following
determination at his second evaluation that his impairment was now at the
70 percent level (see Exhibit C).
The Chief, Special Actions/BCMR Advisories, USAF Physical Disability
Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.
DPPD states that his second TDRL evaluation reflects that he discontinued
using his medication (Thorazine). DPPD presented the case to the Informal
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for review and evaluation. The IPEB
concluded that the decisions rendered at all stages of the disability
evaluation system process were reasonable and accurate. Differing
assessments (from considerable to severe, in this case) while not common,
do occur, even if the patient's actual condition is not significantly
different. The second TDRL evaluation, despite characterizing his
impairments as severe, also states "he has shown no signs of improvement or
change in his social or vocational rehabilitation." In essence, this would
lend credence to the finding that his condition had not changed and had in
fact stabilized, fully supporting the decision to retire him at 50 percent.
Additionally, there is an October 1974, psychiatric evaluation stating
that his schizophrenia was in good remission, and that he was competent
with little social and industrial incapacity. Also pointed out was the
fact that he functioned adequately to petition the FAA for a pilot's
license. While these issues are subsequent to the second TDRL evaluation
in July 1974, they are so near to that time that they would clearly
indicate his medical condition had not deteriorated since his initial TDRL
evaluation (see Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In further support of his request applicant provided copies of documents he
feels are pertinent to his application. His 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. In reviewing the disability
processing in the applicant’s case, it appears that during his initial TDRL
evaluation in December 1972, it was determined by the examining physician
that his condition had significantly improved to a “considerable” level and
the IPEB reduced his compensable disability rating from 100 percent to 50
percent. During his second TDRL evaluation in July 1974, it was determined
that his condition had changed to the “severe” level. However, the IPEB
recommended that he be retained on the TDRL at the previously established
50 percent rating and the Physical Review Council upheld that decision and
permanently retired the applicant at that level. Notwithstanding the fact
that the IPEB opined that the differing assessments between “severe” and
“considerable” are subjective, there appears to be a disparity between the
disability rating assigned and the rating guidelines established in the
VASRD. We believe that the applicant’s level of impairment based on his
medical condition may have been more severe than “considerable” at the time
of permanent disposition. It is our opinion that any doubt on the degree
of his disabling condition should be resolved in his favor. We therefore
agree with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and believe that in order to
remove the possibility of an injustice, the applicant’s record should be
corrected to reflect that he was retired with a compensable disability
rating of 70 percent. However, we are not persuaded that the evidence
provided that his condition at the time of permanent disposition met the
criteria for award of a compensable rating of 100 percent. Accordingly, we
recommend that his records be corrected as indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
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 permanent
retirement for physical disability on 11 September 1974, he was assigned a
compensable rating of 70 percent for schizophrenia, undifferentiated type,
with a “severe” social and industrial impairment of function, in accordance
with VASRD code 9204.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 6 Nov 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Aug 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 3 Oct 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Oct 01.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, not dated, with atchs.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 01-01545
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
permanent retirement for physical disability on 11 September 1974, he was
assigned a compensable rating of 70 percent for schizophrenia,
undifferentiated type, with a “severe” social and industrial impairment of
function, in accordance with VASRD code 9204.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
He remained on the TDRL until 4 Feb 88, at which time he was permanently retired with a 50 percent disability rating. 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. 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00576
The VA rating decision on 9 August 2002 (two months post-separation) service connected schizophrenia, code 9204, with a 50% rating. As a result of his impairment, the Board considered ratings of 30% to 100%. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows and that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disability retirement, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00582
The CI was removed from TDRL, and medically separated with a 10% Service disability rating. At that time, he was working 35 hours per week, and was enrolled in college. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication.The Board did not surmise from the record or PEB ruling in this case...
On 31 October 1996, the Secretary of the Air Force agreed with the findings of the IPEB and directed the applicant's permanent retirement, with a 30 percent disability rating. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that the applicant served his last five years of military service with a severe eating disorder that resulted in excessive weight loss and physical disability that was thoroughly evaluated at Wilford Hall Medical Center in 1994. Accordingly, we recommend that...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01206
Subsequent to being evaluated by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) and Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB), the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of AFR 35-4 (Placed on Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL)). Following a period of observation and treatment on TDRL status, he was permanently disability retired on 12 Jun 1986, with a disability rating of 40 percent for his condition and received pay in the grade of colonel, with over 26 years...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01026
Whereas the Air Force rates a member's disability based on the degree of severity at the time of separation. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied. Whereas the Air Force rates a member's disability based on the degree of severity at the time of separation.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03279
On 21 Feb 02, the Air Force PEB recommended that the applicant be permanently retired from the Air Force with a combined disability rating of 30 percent. Functional factors to be considered include but are not limited to psychotic manifestations, speech disturbances, impairment of vision, tremors, complete or partial loss of use of one or more extremities, and visceral manifestations. Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the applicant's disability processing...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00371
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied. Following DPPD’s assessment, they conclude the applicant was treated fairly throughout the military Disability Evaluation System (DES) process, that he was properly rated under federal disability guidelines at the time of his evaluation, and that he was afforded the opportunity for further review as provided by federal law and policy. As...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01142
The MEB recommended referral to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). When the applicant was removed from the TDRL he was not entitled to a new DD Form 214 since the time spent on the TDRL was not active duty time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his argument that his records should be corrected to reflect that he is...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant developed a bipolar disorder during the course of her active duty service, a condition which had not 2 AFBCMR 97- 01142 J been diagnosed prior to her service (as suggested by the IPEB) nor which was aggravated by "willful noncompliance" as the FPEB found. The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant should receive relief from the disability evaluation system and have...