RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02016
INDEX NUMBER: 108.00
XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His honorable discharge from the Air Force be changed to a medical
retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his discharge, he was unable to perform his assigned
military duties as an armament systems specialist. At the time of his
discharge from the hospital he was assigned duties working in the
snack bar.
In support of his application, the applicant provides copies of rating
decisions on his disabilities by the Department of Veterans Affairs
(DVA).
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was involuntarily separated from service effective 19 Sep
97, while serving in the grade of E-4 with 9 years, 3 months, and 25
days of service. The applicant was given a reenlistment eligibility
(RE) code of “4D,” “Grade is Senior Airman or Sergeant, completed at
least 9 years Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS), but fewer
than 16 years TAFMS, and has not been selected for promotion to Staff
Sergeant (E-5).”
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s
request. The applicant was apparently involuntarily separated with an
honorable discharge as a result of his nonselection for promotion to
staff sergeant (E-5). Six months prior to his separation, the
applicant sustained numerous injuries in a motor vehicle accident,
including rib fractures, a collapsed lung, pelvic fractures, and an
ankle fracture. Medical records indicate excellent recovery from
these injuries. There is no evidence in the medical record that
indicates that applicant was not fit for continued duty at the time of
his separation.
The mere presence of a physical defect or condition does not qualify a
member for disability retirement or discharge. To qualify for Air
Force disability evaluation the physical defect or condition must
render the member unfit for duty and their military career must have
been cut short due to the service connected disability. The
applicant’s military career was not cut short by his medical problems,
nor is there evidence in the record that the residuals of his injuries
from his motor vehicle accident were unfitting for continued service.
Members in the process of separating or retiring are not placed on
medical hold for disability evaluation of medical conditions.
Furthermore, when there has been no serious deterioration within the
final 12 months of active service, the future ability to perform duty
shall not be a consideration. The applicant’s medical records show
progressive satisfactory recovery from his motor vehicle injuries. Of
the several injuries he suffered, only his ankle injury is rated 10
percent by the DVA. The DVA rated his back pain at 20 percent from
the date of his separation, although there were no medical entries in
his medical record going back several months before his separation.
Title 38, USC, which governs the DVA compensation system was written
to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions without regard
to whether they were unfitting for military service.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The applicant
underwent a separation physical on 27 Aug 97. He was subsequently
cleared for worldwide duty with no disqualifying physical profiles.
Military records do not reflect that he was incapable of reasonably
performing his military duties. This is confirmed in his last
performance report, which praises his superior duty performance while
deployed during the period of the report.
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
24 Dec 03 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response
has not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
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. 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 and adopt their rationale as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. 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 Docket Number BC-2003-
02016 in Executive Session on 19 February 2004, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. VAughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
dated 15 Sep 03.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 19 Dec 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Dec 03.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01354
The injuries to his right ankle and heel should have been considered just as unfitting for continued military service as the loss of his left leg. While members can currently request to appeal a fit finding; that was not the case at the time he was boarded. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02630
In order to qualify for an Air Force disability retirement, she would have had to been referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) with a serious life threatening medical condition with an overall disability rating of at least 30 percent prior to her release form active duty. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-04055
His left knee condition is not considered service connected by the DVA. We agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01421
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01421 INDEX CODE: 108.08 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that his retirement for disability reasons was the result of an instrumentality of war. Accordingly, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03293
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03293 INDEX CODE: 108.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 NOV 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears the applicant is requesting his honorable discharge be changed to a medical retirement and that he be eligible for Combat- Related Special Compensation (CRSC). Review...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00222
After considering the applicant’s medical records, including information pertaining to the applicant’s treatment for the lacunar stroke, on 27 February 2002, the IPEB recommended the applicant be permanently retired because of physical disability with a compensable rating of 30% for major depressive disorder associated with myofascial pain. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02734
He claims his PTSD is the result of hazardous service and combat related based on a traumatic experience in which he was thrust into during a JP-4 storage tank explosion, which killed approximately 30 Korean contractors. After a thorough review of the available evidence of record, it is our opinion that the service-connected medical conditions the applicant believes are combat-related were not incurred as the direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03642
The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit E. ODUSD(MPP)/Comp reviewed the applicant's request and concurs with the findings and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03112
He entered active duty in the Air Force on 24 Jul 73 for officer training and was discharged on 18 Oct 73 to accept a commission. Available records show that the applicant served 4 months and 16 days on active duty. 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01614
In her request for an increase in her Air Force disability rating, she submits a DVA rating decision as evidence of an Air Force error. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states her disability was more severe than the Air Force found while she was on active duty. Her condition was not rated by the DVA for a condition that deteriorated after discharge but...