Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02033
Original file (BC-2003-02033.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02033
            INDEX CODE:  108.02

            COUNSEL:  DVA

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason and authority for separation on his DD Form 214,  Armed
Forces of the United States Report of  Transfer  or  Discharge,  be  changed
from Existing Prior To Service (EPTS) to Line of Duty (LOD).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His hearing was outstanding when he entered active duty and his DD Form  214
should read LOD or DNEPTE (did not exist prior to entry).

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a copy of his DD  Form  214.
His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The available records indicate the applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air
Force on 2  September  1959  for  four  years  and  served  as  an  aircraft
mechanic.  He was honorably discharged on 5 July 1962, and credited  with  2
years, 10 months and 4 days of active military service.   His  DD  Form  214
lists the narrative reason for discharge as "Physical Disability  -  EPTS  -
established by medical board and individual made application  for  discharge
by reason of physical disability, Chapter 9, AFM 35-4."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  review  of  the  DVA  medical  documentation
indicates that prior to entering the  service  the  applicant  had  problems
with his ears including middle ear infections (26 Mar 02  medical  statement
from civilian otolaryngologist and 1 Jun 00 otolaryngology  progress  note).
While on  active  duty  he  had  difficulty  with  right  ear  drainage  and
perforated eardrum leading to a surgical  procedure  in  1962  that  is  not
otherwise specified.  In one part of the record an ear surgery  is  implied,
in another a nasal surgery.  Since discharge  and  over  the  years  he  has
experienced progressive hearing loss and  underwent  reconstructive  surgery
on the right ear in July 2002, without improvement

In December 2001, he filed  a  claim  with  the  DVA  for  service-connected
disability due to residuals of reconstruction of the right ear.  DVA  Rating
Decision dated 17 Sep 02, indicates that the DVA granted service  connection
despite an absence of service medical records, but rated the  disability  at
zero percent.

The preponderance of the available evidence does not lead  to  a  conclusion
that an error  or  injustice  was  made  at  the  time  of  the  applicant's
discharge from the Air Force for an existing  prior  to  service  condition.
Therefore, no change in the record is warranted and the  application  should
be denied.

The BCMR Medical Consultant's advisory is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a copy of a report from emedicine.com about  perforations
of the tympanic membrane to support his  contentions.   He  states  the  Air
Force accepted his truthful statements about very  early,  prior,  childhood
ear infections and accepted him as 100% sound, including hearing.  The  fact
his ear condition happened to him in the Air Force had  very  little  to  do
with prior childhood ear infections, and even if  the  very  early  earaches
had anything to do with  the  in-service  condition,  his  military  service
aggravated the condition resulting in the rupture and subsequent  surgeries.
 He was exposed  to  acoustic  trauma  from  jet  engines  and  exposure  to
infectious organisms  most  likely  from  other  airman  who  lived  in  the
barracks with him.

The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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,  based  on
the available evidence, it is our opinion that the reason and authority  for
the applicant's separation were appropriate under the  circumstances.   More
importantly, no evidence has been provided which would lead  us  to  believe
that his condition, which resulted  in  his  discharge,  initially  occurred
while  on  active  duty.   Therefore,  we  agree  with   the   opinion   and
recommendation of the Air Force office 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.  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-2003-
02033 in Executive Session on 16 Mar 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Mr. James A. Wolfe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jun 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 Dec 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jan 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Feb 04, w/atchs.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01854

    Original file (BC-2003-01854.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01854 INDEX CODE: 108.02 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His injury be changed from Existing Prior To Service (EPTS) to In Line of Duty (ILOD). The reports and disposition letter clearly shows the condition was ILOD. Under the laws in effect at the time, the services did not assign...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02080

    Original file (BC-2003-02080.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of his separation, his hearing loss in the right ear did not constitute a medical condition that warranted referral into the Disability Evaluation system. The Medical Consultant 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 9 Jan 04 for review and comment within 30 days. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02893

    Original file (BC-2003-02893.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of her submission, the applicant provided a copy of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) findings and recommendations and documents extracted from her medical records. Her other medical conditions were not the reason she was referred into the Disability Evaluation System and were not at the time of disposition, unfitting for continued service. Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the applicant's disability processing and the rating she received at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03024

    Original file (BC-2003-03024.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 August 2002, a psychiatrist diagnosed him with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and referred him to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that applicant’s service medical records clearly show the condition existed prior to military service having onset in childhood. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01923

    Original file (BC-2003-01923.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The February 1979, TDRL evaluation showed his Hodgkin's Disease was still in remission and he had recovered from his Guillain Barre Syndrome with only minimal evidence of any residual weakness. The BCMR Medical Consultant's complete advisory is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that he elected not to reenlist because he was forced to find work while he was on the TDRL. After...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00058

    Original file (BC-2003-00058.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he was discharged from the service he was given a 10% disability rating due to malaria and drew $11.20 a month for two years. The applicant had no medical condition at the time of his separation from the military that warranted evaluation in the Air Force disability system. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201326

    Original file (0201326.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    This is the reason why an individual with a medical condition that does not render the individual unfit for service at the time of separation can some time later receive a compensation rating from the DVA for that service connected condition. The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. The fact that a person was treated for a medical condition while on active duty does not automatically mean that the condition is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04226

    Original file (BC-2003-04226.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of his retirement physical he denied otoxins, vertigo, or ear fullness and tinnitus, though the physician's impression was bilateral sensory hearing loss on his left ear and conductive deafness on his right ear. His bilateral hearing loss is documented as incurred while on active duty but is not considered to be combat-related. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03825

    Original file (BC-2003-03825.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03825 INDEX NUMBER: 145.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to show she was medically retired from the Air Force and not disability discharged with severance pay. The IPEB properly rated the applicant’s condition at the time of her evaluation in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02469

    Original file (BC-2003-02469.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that although he contends he provided medical information for the three years up to the time of his enlistment, there is no evidence to confirm this. The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and states they concur with the Medical Consultant’s evaluation and recommend no...