ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02151 and
86-02738
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded and he be medically discharged.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
At the age of 18, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of private on 6 January 1950, for a period of four years.
On 7 December 1950, a summary court-martial found the applicant guilty of
violating Article 96 (General Article) of the Articles of War.
Specifically, for being drunk in public on 17 November 1950. The
punishment consisted of forfeiture of $25.00 and 30 days of hard labor.
On 26 May 1952, a summary court-martial found the applicant guilty of
violating Article 134 (General Article) of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ). Specifically, for being drunk in public on 11 May 1952.
The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $35.00 and 45 days of hard labor.
On 27 April 1953, a summary court-martial found the applicant guilty of
violating Article 86 (Absence without Leave (AWOL)), UCMJ. Specifically,
for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 23 April 1953. The
punishment consisted of forfeiture of $30.00 and 30 days of hard labor.
The applicant received a psychiatric evaluation on 19 June 1953 and was
found to have a character disorder (i.e., anti-social personality with
immaturity features), rather than a mental disease.
A Board of Officers convened on 29 July 1953, to determine the applicant’s
fitness for retention in the Air Force, and the applicant appeared with
counsel. The board found that the applicant gave evidence of habits, other
than those indicating discharge for physical or mental conditions as
provided for in AFR 35-49, which rendered his retention in the service
undesirable and applicant unfit for further military service. The board
recommended he be discharged because of unfitness with service
characterized as undesirable.
The applicant suffered a grand mal epileptic seizure in August 1953, and
was hospitalized at Travis AFB, California for a period of two months.
The applicant received a separation physical on 16 October 1953, and was
found medically qualified for discharge.
On 29 October 1953, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
AFR 39-17 (Unfitness), with service characterized as Undesirable. He
completed 3 years, 6 months, and 23 days of active service, with 90 days of
lost time.
On 19 February 1987, the Board considered applicant’s request that his
undesirable discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions).
The Board found the application was not timely filed, and that it would not
be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. Accordingly, the
Board denied the application on the basis of timeliness. A complete copy
of the Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit G.
In an application, dated 24 July 2001, the applicant requested
reconsideration of his appeal and provided additional evidence. The
applicant contends that at the time of his discharge, he was suffering from
epilepsy, grand mal, and should have been medically discharged. Applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and
states, in part, that lacking pertinent information regarding the
applicant’s history of epilepsy, they must assume on the presumption of
regularity that the two-month hospitalization at Travis AFB prior to his
discharge provided a thorough evaluation of his condition and concluded
that he did not have a medical condition which would require disability
consideration. There are no post-service records of care for epilepsy to
know whether this has been a continuing problem. If a medical condition
was found prior to his separation that would have led to disability
consideration, the discharge may have been considered as a dual-action
process, and the applicant may have received an Under Other Than Honorable
Conditions (UOTHC) discharge in lieu of a medical disability discharge
because of his long record of disciplinary infractions and courts-martial
actions.
The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit I.
AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied. AFPC/DPPD states, in part,
that the applicant has not submitted any documentation to show that he was
unfit due to a physical disability at the time of his separation. A
medical examination was completed on the applicant prior to his separation,
and no complications or sequelae were evident following his seizure and he
was medically qualified for discharge. The applicant’s court-martial
records indicate that a psychiatric evaluation showed no evidence of
psychiatric disease, and the applicant’s behavior and mental status were
considered that of a character disorder, and not a mental disease. At that
time, he was diagnosed to possess an anti-social personality with immature
features. There are no errors or irregularities regarding his discharge
that would justify a change to his military records.
The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit J.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 12 October 2001 for review and response with 30 days.
However, 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 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
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that
relief should be granted. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,
we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the offices of the Air
Force. The offices of primary responsibility have adequately addressed
applicant’s contentions and we agree with their opinions and
recommendations. We, therefore, adopt the rationale expressed as the basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that
he has suffered either an error or an injustice. Hence, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number 01-02151 in
Executive Session on 6 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit G. Record of Proceedings, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jul 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 6 Sep 01.
Exhibit J. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 4 Oct 01.
Exhibit K. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 12 Oct 01
LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
Panel Chair
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00267
The Board noted no mental health (MH) conditions were referred to the MEB or PEB for adjudication. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a determination of unfit for a mental health condition; and, therefore, no additional disability ratings can be recommended. SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for AR20130016483 (PD201300267)I have...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00140
The MEB forwarded epilepsy with breakthrough seizures on therapeutic levels of medications as medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501. In the matter of the seizure disorder condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 20%, coded 8910 IAW VASRD §4.124. I direct that all the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected accordingly no later than 120 days from the date of this memorandum.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00059
Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Boards defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. Post-Separation) Effective - 20100401 Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam Epilepsy, Partial Motor w/ Secondary Generalization 8999-8910 10% Seizure Disorder 8910 10%* 20110815 No Additional MEB/PEB Entries Other x 2 20110815 Combined: 10% Combined: 20% Derived from...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00442
Although the VA assumed the occurrence of five seizures during the year prior to the VA examination, this frequency was not deemed to average “at least 1 major seizure in 4 months over the last year,” and thus did not justify a 60% rating. In the matter of the generalized seizure disorder condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 20%, coded 8910 IAW VASRD §4.124a. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00105
On 16 Jun 10, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) reviewed the case file and medical records and also recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent for diagnosis of POTS using VASRD code 8299-8210. Her condition has not changed in severity, the DVA made their rating by correctly applying the laws for analogous ratings. In this respect, the applicant is requesting that her medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement based on the 80 percent...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00222
The Board noted the presence of the shoulder condition as a currently rated condition by the VA, but notes that the scope of its recommendations does not extend to conditions that were incurred after separation or which were not diagnosed or in evidence at the time of medical separation. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board. I concur with that finding, accept their recommendation and direct that your records be corrected as set forth in the...
He presented to VA in 1997, was evaluated and initially rated at 10% for Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) that was judged to be service connected due to the history of anxiety documented in his service medical record. An examination of the applicant’s medical records shows that he was treated for various medical conditions throughout his military career; however, none were considered severe or grave enough that a medical evaluation conducted for the purpose of his ongoing discharge...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00712
The medical record documents three major seizures in the first year of diagnosis, in November 2002, March 2003, and July 2003. VA treatment report on 20 November 2008, also stated last the major seizure was March 2008. The FPEB noted that the CI had another seizure in March 2008.
He was given a Reentry Code of “2Q,” “personnel medically retired or discharged” and a Separation Code of “JFL,” “involuntary discharge directed by established directive (No entitlements) for a physical disability which existed prior to entry on active duty, during a break in service, or during a period of inactive service, and was established by a physical evaluation board.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the evaluations prepared by the...
The applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and personality disorder unsuiting for continued military service. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 June 2002 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,...