RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01660
INDEX CODE 129.04
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be allowed to retire in the highest grade held, i.e., technical
sergeant (TSgt).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He used marijuana because of his increasing back pain. The hospital
failed him, never x-rayed him or performed a magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) scan. All they did was give him Motrin. Afterwards,
they found six blown discs, degenerative joint disease, and spurs in
both shoulders along with nerve impingement. According to AFI 36-3203,
he could have submitted documentation substantiating satisfactory
service as a TSgt. He was never given that opportunity. He questions
what the decision was based on, given his only two Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPRs) as a TSgt reflected exceptional
performance. He asks if the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) or his
designees even looked at his EPRs.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 Jul 82 and was
ultimately promoted to the grade of TSgt with a date of rank (DOR) of
1 Sep 98.
His performance reports reflect the highest overall ratings (9s under
the “old” system and 5s under the “new” system) with the exception of
an EPR closing 7 Feb 88, which had an overall rating of 8, and a
referral EPR closing 4 Oct 01, which had an overall rating of 2. The 7
Feb 88 EPR made vague references to actions which apparently resulted
in an Article 15 being imposed on the applicant on 11 Sep 87 for
wrongfully using hashish around 30 Jun 87. The applicant was a
sergeant at the time and stationed in England. Punishment was
forfeiture of $490.00 pay per month for two months and a reprimand.
The applicant did not make a written presentation or appeal the
punishment. The 4 Oct 01 referral EPR is discussed below.
During the period in question, the applicant was assigned to the 16th
Services Squadron at Hurlburt Field, FL, as a readiness specialist.
Medical records indicate in 1997 the applicant fell four feet from a
loading dock onto his lower back. He was in full field armor with
heavy gear at the time. Low back pain worsened and oral medication and
physical therapy were not beneficial. Three months after the initial
injury, he suffered worsening discomfort while moving tents and felt a
pop in his left shoulder coming up from his lower back. He also had
secondary pain in the left side of his neck as well as shoulder
discomfort which had been going on intermittently since 1981. An April
1999 exam indicated low back pain achieved good results with therapy.
In Dec 00 the applicant complained of several months of worsening low
back pain. X-ray results showed only mild degenerative change of the
intervertebral disc space between the first and second lumbar
vertebrae (L1-2). Less than a month later, he underwent an MRI scan of
his lumbar spine which revealed moderate degenerative disc disease and
herniations of the intervertebral disc at the L2-3 level. The MRI also
noted early degenerative changes of the facet joints at the L5-S1
level. In Jan 01, he complained of continued pain radiating to the
left buttock and posterior thigh. The applicant received some
transient relief with epidural steroid injections. In Apr 01, he was
evaluated by a civilian specialist who noted the MRI results revealed
prominent disc bulge or broad-based protrusion on the right at L2-3
without nerve root impingement and a small shallow para-median disc
protrusion at L1-2. The specialist diagnosed back pain as traumatic
lumbar facet syndrome and mild lumbar degenerative disk disease and
recommended diagnostic facet joint injections. The record is not clear
whether these injections were performed. Further medical details are
provided in the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation at Exhibit C.
On 17 Jan 01, the Hurlburt Air Force Office of Special Investigations
(AFOSI) interviewed the applicant about allegations that he had used
marijuana. He consented to provide a urine sample for testing and, on
22 Jan 01, his urine tested positive for marijuana usage. On 3 Mar 01,
the applicant pled guilty and was convicted by special court-martial
(SCM) for wrongful use of marijuana between 17 Dec 00 and 17 Jan 01.
Sentence was 30 days confinement, reduction from TSgt to senior
airman, 60 days hard labor without confinement and reprimand. The
sentence was adjudged on 3 May 01; however, that portion of the
punishment pertaining to hard labor was not ordered executed.
On 11 Jun 01, the commander notified the applicant he was being
recommended for a general discharge based on the SCM conviction. After
consulting counsel, the applicant requested a hearing before an
administrative discharge board (ADB) and a lengthy service
consideration by the SAF.
On 28-29 Aug 01, the ADB convened and found the following: The
applicant did use the marijuana for which he was convicted; the abuse
was a departure of his usual and customary behavior and did not
involve recurring incidents other than experimentation; the abuse did
not involve drug distribution; he did not desire or intend to engage
in drug abuse in the future; and his drug abuse was not likely to
recur. The ADB recommended the applicant be retained. Legal review on
18 Sep 01 found the board’s findings and recommendations supportable.
On 2 Nov 01, the applicant requested retirement effectively 31 Jul 02.
On 26 Nov 01, the EPR closing 4 Oct 01 was referred to the applicant.
His on/off duty conduct was marked unacceptable and he received an
overall rating of 2 (not recommended for promotion at this time). The
applicant did not provide comments.
On 20 Dec 01, the SAF Personnel Council (SAFPC) determined that the
applicant held the grade of TSgt for 33 months but did not serve
satisfactorily in that grade. They did find he served satisfactorily
in the grade of staff sergeant and directed his advancement to that
grade on the retired list effective the date of completion of all
required service (active and retired time total 30 years).
On 31 Jul 02, the applicant was retired in the grade of senior airman
with 20 years and 2 days of active service. The applicant will be
advanced to the grade of staff sergeant in 2012.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant notes the medical records reflect the
applicant sought care for recurrent shoulder pain in Dec 99 but there
are no medical record entries evident in the months leading up to the
Dec 01 timeframe (time of marijuana use). The medical records
corroborate the fact that he was suffering from increased low back
pain during the time he used marijuana and he was being treated and
evaluated for his pain. Contrary to his allegations, the records show
he did have x-rays and an MRI of his back was performed in a timely
fashion. The MRI revealed degenerative disc disease but did not
correlate with his symptoms. The 26 Jan 01 medical record entry does
not give any indication that inadequate pain control by Motrin was a
concern of the applicant or that he requested and was denied anything
stronger. There is no medical evidence that his shoulder condition was
bothersome to him during the time frame of illegal marijuana abuse.
The Consultant finds no evidence in the medical record that the
applicant’s back pain was ignored or that he was denied stronger
analgesic medication to the extent that he had no recourse other than
to resort to illegal use of marijuana. Denial is recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPPD notes a retirement physical exam on 23 Apr 02 and the
applicant’s last EPR clearly show he was capable of overcoming the
presumption of fitness during his last year of active service. His
military career was not curtailed as a result of any medical
condition. They find no reason why the applicant’s records should be
changed to reflect a retired grade of TSgt. The punitive actions
leading to his demotion were well within the jurisdiction of the court-
martial’s authority. Denial is recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 1 Nov 02 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice to warrant retiring the applicant
in the grade of TSgt. The applicant asserts he used marijuana in 1991
to assuage the pain from his alleged insufficiently treated medical
condition. However, we note the applicant apparently received an
Article 15 for wrongful use of hashish in 1987, at least 10 years
before he complained of back pain. Contrary to the applicant’s claims,
his medical records reveal that x-rays and an MRI were performed on
his back in a timely fashion. He has not demonstrated that his pain
was inadequately controlled or that he requested or was denied any
stronger medications for pain. Further, at the time of the applicant’s
second drug use, the available evidence does not support his
contention that his condition was so unmanaged he had no recourse but
to resort to the illegal use of marijuana for pain control. We also
note that instead of being discharged for his misconduct, the ADB’s
retention recommendation allowed the applicant to serve until eligible
for retirement. The SAFPC considered his entire service performance as
well as his time in grade as a TSgt before determining the highest
grade in which he served satisfactorily was staff sergeant. As a
result, he will be advanced to that grade in 2012. The applicant has
not provided evidence of an error or injustice entitling him to any
added relief than that already afforded him. We therefore find that
his appeal should be denied.
4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of 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 10 December 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket No. 02-
01660 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 May 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 Sep 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 22 Oct 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Nov 02.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Acting Panel Chair
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00525
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: ‘VA rated disability at 40% Service connection on May 28, 1997 and considered me unemployable on 4-22-04 for the back condition military discharged me with at 10%. Follow-up for back pain. The frequency and severity of the CI’s back pain and radicular pain increased significantly during his time on TDRL and this was consistent with the increasing severity of degenerative disc disease and herniated discs with impingement on the right S1 nerve root documented...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-00025
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The PEB requested a psychiatric evaluation due to reference in the MEB and medical records of anxiety disorder NOS and PTSD.The NARSUM psychiatric addendum dated 19 July 2001 notedthe CI’s episodic anxiety was due to...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00062
Treatment records document relief of headaches with medication. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CIs disability and separation determination, as follows: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING Intervertebral Disc Syndrome 5243 10% COMBINED 10% The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20120118, w/atchs Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans Affairs Treatment...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02636
Pre-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Low Back Pain5299-523710%Degenerative Disc Disease, Moderate in Nature, L5-S-1 and Mild at L4-5 with Facet Spondylosis Lumbar Spine5242-501010%20080502Obstructive Sleep ApneaNot UnfittingSleep Apnea6847NSCSTRTinnitusNot UnfittingTinnitus Right Ear626010%STROther x 3 (Not In Scope)Other x 5 RATING: 10%RATING: 20% *Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20080613(most proximate to date of separation [DOS]). An MRI of the...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01382
ROM limitation after repetitive use charted above§4.71a Rating20%20%40%* Later VA exams documented similarly limited forward flexion ROMs (June 2011 at 28 degrees [30]; June 2012 at 25).The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.The CI underwent a lumbar discectomy of L5-S1 on the left approximately 7 weeks prior to discharge, which was less than 3 weeks after his PEB determination. Pain was rated as 0/10. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01245
The NARSUM documented a normal neurological examination and ROM. The conditions adjudicated as not unfitting by the PEB and that were also contended by the CI are right foot pain secondary to pes planus, plantar fasciitis, and fractured 4th phalanx, right shoulder bursitis, bilateral knee osteoarthritis, and DDD of the cervical spine. An MRI of the left knee on 8 May 2006 (2 months prior to separation) was normal.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004639
The applicant requests medical retirement. The applicant provides: * Extract of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) * VA rating decision with allied documents, medical forms, evaluations, checklists, progress notes, and various civilian and/or service medical records throughout his military service * VA rating decision * Elected medical records, some undated and some missing continuation pages, from Advanced Pain Medicine Institute, Chevy Chase, MD * Patient Laboratory...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02299
Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Neck Pain…524310%Degenerative Disc Disease, Cervical Spine5299-524210%20060731Chronic Low Back Pain…524310%Degenerative Disc Disease, Lumbar Spine524210%20060731Other x 0 (Not In Scope)Other x 7 RATING: 20%RATING: 20% *Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20070215(most proximate to date of separation [DOS]). At pain management visit dated 10 May 2004 the CI reported increased neck and right upper back pain with...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01840
invalid font number 31502 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 that any prerogatives outside the VASRD were exercised.In the matter of the low back pain condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00219
I would ask that you request from the Department of Veterans Affairs all rating decisions and accompanying medical information for the degenerative disc disease in my neck and low back as well as the rating decisions for the above listed conditions.” The CI also submitted a letter along with his application to the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) stating the Air Force Physical Evaluation Board had rated his conditions based on incapacitating episodes but that the VA had used the...