ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-01731
XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His disability rating be increased from 40% to 100%.
It be determined that his disability was received as a direct result of
armed conflict or was caused by an instrument of war and incurred in line
of duty during a period of war.
His Type II Diabetes, Mellitus with Peripheral Sensory/Motor Neuropathy be
rated under Disability guidelines.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was retired in the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) with a
compensable disability rating of 40% effective 16 July 1994.
On 21 July 1998, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to
increase his disability rating from 40% to 100%. For an accounting of the
facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s disability retirement,
and, the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of
Proceedings at Exhibit H.
On 12 July 2001, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration
through his Congressman, contending that the Air Force did not take time to
check his symptoms out and that the doctors he saw knew he was exposed to
Agent Orange. Applicant provides a copy of a neurology evaluation that he
had performed by the Center for Occupational and Environmental Neurology
that he claims shows his neuropathy was caused by dioxins in his system
(Exhibit I).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support
of the appeal, we remain unpersuaded that the applicant’s due process
rights were violated during the disability processing, that he was
improperly evaluated, or that the ratings assigned at the time of his
removal from the Temporary Disability Retired List were erroneous or
unjust. The most recent submission by the applicant does not provide any
new and conclusive evidence that was not considered during our original
decision. Rather, it provides a different opinion regarding the causative
agent in his diagnosed neuropathy. Therefore, we have no basis on which to
favorably consider the requested relief.
_________________________________________________________________
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 8 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit H. Record of Proceedings, dated 6 Aug 98,w/Exhibits.
Exhibit I. Letter, Congressman Goode, dated 19 Jul 01,
w/atchs
DAVID W. MULGREW
Panel Chair
conditions AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating the applicant has not submitted any material or documentation to show he was improperly rated at the time of his removal from the TDRL and permanent retirement by reason of physical disability. 3 AFBCMR 96-01731 At the time of his disability processing, applicant's degenerative polyneuropathy was associated with his cervical spondylosis, but not separately...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00805
The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that his records show he was treated for both myalgic myopathy of unknown origin and peripheral neuropathy. In 1994, he received a brief from the DVA stating that his peripheral neuropathy was added to the list of conditions related to Agent Orange. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-02923
His service-connected medical condition of the nervous system (occipital headaches), hypertension, intervertebral disc syndrome (cervical) and neurology of the middle radicular nerve group (left arm) be reevaluated under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Program in order to qualify for compensation. In support of his request, the applicant provided documentation associated with his CRSC application. Available DVA records reflect a combined compensable rating of 100% for...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-04019A
The applicant stated that on the advice of his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) hearing officer, he should request the Air Force correct his records so that he would be rated for his condition of “Filariasis.” The applicant was advised by the AFBCMR in a letter dated 19 Apr 05 that his request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board (Exhibit G). On 28 Sep 05, the AFBCMR responded to a second Congressional Inquiry (Exhibit I), which asked that it be explained to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | bc-2011-04080
In view of the DVA rating decisions and the severity of her condition, the disability rating awarded by the Air Force should have been higher and she should have been retired by reason of physical disability. 60 percent – Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits to a diabetic care provider, plus complications that would not be compensable if...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-03585A
_________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD states, in part, that the findings and recommendation of the FPEB along with the applicant’s rebuttal for a permanent retirement were forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for adjudication and SAFPC recommended that she be removed from the TDRL and permanently retired with a 60% rating. However, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00552
Both Boards recommended permanent retirement with a disability rating of 40 percent. DPPD therefore recommends his record be corrected to show he was retired by reason of physical disability for fibromyalgia with a permanent disability rating of 60 percent. AFPC/DPPD’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel for the applicant states while the BCMR Medical Consultant’s advisory...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-00545
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00545 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 40 percent disability retirement rating she received be increased. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the record be changed to reflect the applicant...
_ i The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C ) . The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). He now applies requesting that his status be changed to medical retirement based on Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) (temporary) award of 100% DR. FACTS: The records indicate that the applicant met a Medical Evaluation Board on 19...