RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03182
INDEX CODE: 108.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be granted full active military retirement, benefits, and
entitlements.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was allowed to transfer from active duty Air Force to the Air
National Guard (ANG) with a medical condition that was incurred while
on active duty. He states that the ANG has now requested a medical
discharge for him. Applicant believes it is unfair that after 17 plus
years of service that he not be allowed to retire with benefits.
His complete application, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 May 1985 and was
progressively promoted to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt/E-5) with
a date of rank of 1 June 1991. He applied and was transferred to the
ANG effective 4 May 2000 after 14 years, 11 months and 21 days of
active service. Applicant was promoted in the ANG to the grade of
Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) with a date of rank of 14 November 2001.
On 10 August 2002, the applicant acknowledged receipt of Notification
of Action Under AFI 36-3209 that informed him that he had been
determined medically disqualified for worldwide duty and was being
recommended for medical discharge. His supervisor presented a
statement regarding his inability to deploy as a direct consequence of
his not being able to don his gas mask due to a documented phobia.
His supervisor noted that the applicant was considered an asset to the
AGE shop but also noted that there were no non-deployable positions in
AGE.
Applicant was medically discharged on 13 January 2003 and, at
discharge, he was not eligible for retired pay at age 60.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR medical consultant provided an extensive evaluation of the
applicant’s request and case. He found that action and disposition
were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force
directives that implement the law and he is of the opinion that no
change to the applicant’s records is warranted.
The BCMR Medical Consultant notes that the applicant experienced
medical conditions that were not unfitting for continued service but
unsuiting only. His service medical record documents anxiety attacks
that were present for many years but at intermittent intervals and
only when wearing the gas mask. Applicant was seen by mental health
in January 1996 and there were no further medical record entries that
indicated similar problems. In November 1999, applicant underwent a
Periodic Health Assessment (PHA) where he had the opportunity to
address his anxiety and panic attacks on an AF Form 422 but failed to
do so. Consequently he was declared fit for worldwide duty. The ANG
performed a PHA in February 2001 and again, applicant neglected to
document any problems with anxiety or panic attacks resulting in his
successful entry into the ANG.
By contrast, in May 2000, about 3 weeks after leaving the Air Force
and transferring to the ANG, he filed a claim for disability
compensation through the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his
panic attacks. Eighteen months after transferring to the ANG the
applicant’s phobia of donning the gas mask became known, apparently
from information from his DVA disability claim, and he was
disqualified from worldwide deployment via a fitness for duty
determination.
Because his condition existed prior to his entry into the ANG, it is
not ratable or compensable. Because his condition did not make him
unfit while on active duty and he voluntarily separated, he is not
eligible for disability evaluation by the Air Force. However, his
condition has been properly determined to be service related and he is
being appropriately compensated as a result of his May 2000 claim to
the DVA.
The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states that based on the
preponderance of the available evidence it appears that the applicant
was reasonably capable of performing his military duties as an AGE
mechanic up until the time of his active duty discharge. The fact
that he performed the same duties (AGE mechanic) in the ANG for two
additional years supports the conclusion that his condition was
unsuiting as opposed to unfitting which would have required he submit
to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and/or Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB). The fact that he did not document his condition on the PHA
prior to his transfer to the ANG might well have cost him entry into
the ANG in the first place.
DPPD’s examination of the BCMR case file found no rationale or grounds
to change applicant’s records to show that he was awarded a disability
retirement under the provisions of AFI 36-3212 and Title 10, United
States Code (USC). DPPD wholeheartedly agrees with the BCMR Medical
Consultant’s findings and recommendation. The DPPD evaluation is at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
14 February 2003 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, there has been no response 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air
Force offices of primary responsibility, in particular, the BCMR
Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. Inasmuch as the applicant's condition was found to be
unsuiting as opposed to unfitting, he was not eligible for disability
evaluation by the Air Force. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03182 in Executive Session on 20 May 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. Kenneth Dumm, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 16 Dec 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 10 Feb 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02636
The MEB referred the applicant’s case to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 September 2005 for review and response within 30 days. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Sep 05.
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.
On 22 November 1999, a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) convened and based on the diagnosis of panic disorder with agoraphobia, definite social and industrial adaptability impairment, DVA Diagnostic Code 9412, recommended the applicant be retained on the TDRL with a 30% compensable disability rating. On 25 May 2001, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Board (SAFPB) agreed that the medical evidence indicated that the applicant’s condition was permanent, relatively stable on...
Based on the preponderance of evidence, the board concluded that if the applicant was currently serving on active duty with his medical condition, the IPEB would consider him unfit for the rigors of military service and recommend that he be discharged with severance pay with a 10% disability rating. The applicant did not have 20 years of service at the time of his discharge. The BCMR Medical Consultant believes applicant should be awarded a length of service retirement on the basis of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03647
On 15 September 1999 he failed to report for M-16 qualification training and received a Letter of Reprimand on 20 September. The 19 November 1999 Mental Health Clinic record entry indicated continued participation in group therapy but problems with "little insight into his behavior." BRENDA L. ROMINE Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2002-03647 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01740
On 27 September 2001, the Board recommended that the reason for his discharge be changed from asthma to anxiety disorder based on the opinion of the BCMR Medical Consultant that a diagnosis of asthma was not substantiated and that the applicant’s disabling symptoms were due to an anxiety disorder manifesting as panic attacks. The BCMR Medical Consultant concludes that the prior AFBCMR decision to change the applicant’s records to show disability discharge for anxiety disorder without...
The Board consequently found the member unfit for military service for his condition of asthma and recommended he be discharged with severance pay with a 10 percent disability rating. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of physical disability, with entitlement to severance pay after being diagnosed with asthma. We took note of the applicant’s requests that his records be corrected to show that he was not discharged by reason of...
The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the double- curve thoracic scoliosis, dislocated and fractured thoracic vertebra, and lumbar scoliosis with tilted vertebra were there prior to service. None of his Air Force physicals indicated any EPTS spinal conditions. Applicant provided another statement in which...
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...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2007-221
He asked that his narrative reason for separa- tion be changed to “honorable.” On March 27, 2003, after reviewing the record, the DRB concluded that the applicant was not suitable for service in the Coast Guard but might be able to serve in another Service under circumstances where claustrophobia is not an issue. Instead, the Medical Manual and the DSM classify such phobias as anxiety disorders or panic disorders, which are not personality disorders.9 Because the applicant was never...