RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2002-02744
COUNSEL: DAV
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 27 November 1982 discharge for completion of term of service be changed
to a medical discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While on active duty, he was injured and under medical care.
In support of the appeal, the applicant submits extracts from his
Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) medical records, which includes a copy
of the DVA Decision, dated 21 March 1984, awarding him a 10% rating for
conjunctivitis. In addition, he submits extracts from his military and
civilian medical records.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 15 April 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a
period of four years. He entered his last enlistment on 28 October 1977,
and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant.
He underwent a separation physical on 12 November 1982, and was found
qualified for worldwide duty/separation.
He was honorably discharged from the Regular Air Force on 27 November 1982,
under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Completed Extended Enlistment). He
completed 8 years, 7 months, and 13 days of active service.
On 28 November 1982, he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve for a period of
three years.
On 21 March 1984, the DVA awarded him a combined disability rating of 10%
for conjunctivitis (red irritated eyes) and 0% for traumatic arthritis.
He was reassigned from the Ready Reserve to inactive status on 3 November
1986, for non-participation.
On 1 May 1987, he was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve. He
completed a total of 10 years, 7 months, and 13 days of combined
satisfactory service in the Regular Air Force and Air Force Reserve.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and
states, in part, that while the applicant had allergic conjunctivitis while
on active duty, the condition was not unfitting for continued military
service at the time he was separated from the Regular Air Force. In fact,
he continued to serve in the Air Force Reserve accruing two additional
years of satisfactory service.
The BCMR Medical Consultant further states that 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
between Title 10, U.S.C., and Title 38, U.S.C. Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter
61, is the federal status that charges the Service Secretaries with
maintaining a fit and vital force. Whereas, Title 38, U.S.C., which
governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow awarding
compensation ratings for conditions that are not unfitting for military
service.
The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
the applicant was never referred through the Air Force Disability
Evaluation System. In addition, he was cleared for worldwide
duty/separation prior to his discharge from the Regular Air Force.
Although he was treated for various medical conditions while on active
duty, nothing in the record points toward any unfitting medication
conditions that would have precluded him from performing his military
duties.
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 7 March 2003 for review and response within 30 days. However,
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 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 error or injustice. The applicant contends that while on
active duty, he was injured and under medical care. However, after a
thorough review of the evidence of record and his submission, we are not
persuaded that at the time of his 1982 discharge he had a medical condition
that was unfitting for continued military service. To the contrary, he
underwent a separation physical prior to his discharge and was found
qualified for worldwide duty. In addition, immediately following his
discharge, he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve where he served until 1987.
It appears the applicant believes the DVA's decision to award him an
overall combined compensable disability rating of 10% substantiates that
his condition should have warranted his disability discharge. However, we
note that although the Air Force is required to rate disabilities in
accordance with the DVA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, the DVA operates
under a totally separate system with a different statutory basis. In this
respect, we note that the DVA rates for any and all service-connected
conditions, to the degree they interfere with future employability, without
consideration of fitness. Whereas, the Air Force, upon a finding of
unfitness, rates a member's disability based on the degree of severity at
the time of separation. In the applicant's case, the Air Force determined
that he was fit and qualified for worldwide duty at the time of his
separation. We, therefore, agree with the opinions and recommendations of
the appropriate offices of primary responsibility and 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 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 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 BC-2002-02744
in Executive Session on 24 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Jan 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 4 Mar 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01005
The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant’s total combined permanent disability percentage should be increased from 40 to 60 percent to reflect the severe nature of his bilateral foot pain, which prevented him from reasonably performing his military duties. In the applicant’s case, the Air Force limited its unfit finding to his bilateral foot condition since that was the only condition limiting the performance of his military...
Her complete submission is at Exhibit A. Her records indicate she is currently being compensated by the DVA (see Exhibit D). Had it been determined that she was found unfit for continued military service while performing her initial active duty training, which is a distinctively separate issue, Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing would have been appropriate.
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.
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates that the applicant had a known diagnosis from his years of active duty, which remained quiescent for some 8 or 9 years before causing significant problems. Therefore, DPPD recommends the applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit D). The applicant’s medical records indicate that there were no unfitting conditions that would disqualify him for worldwide military...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01109
We note the BCMR Medical Consultant states that had the applicant indeed completed a MEB in 2004 and was found unfit by a PEB, his case would have been referred to SAFPC for a final disposition. In this respect, we note that the applicant in PD2009-00221 was initially referred to the PEB for asthma, mild persistent and found unfit for continued military service and separated with a 10 percent disability rating, whereas in the case before us, there is no evidence the he was unable to perform...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03176
The complete DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends rescinding the applicants administrative discharge under the provision of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members and supplanting it with an order transferring the applicant to the Reserve Retired Section effective the date of discharge (10 Aug...
The Medical Consultant notes that the DVA has denied service connected disability compensation for a condition that the Air Force has awarded disability compensation. Disability boards can only rate unfitting medical conditions based upon the individual's status at the time of his or her evaluation. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were...
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02618 INDEX CODE: 108.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Honorary Retired Reserve status be changed to a disability retirement and his records be corrected to show he was awarded the Purple Heart Medal. From this assessment, the Medical Consultant states that it would appear that the...