Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02148
Original file (BC-2003-02148.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02148
            INDEX NUMBER:  145.00
            COUNSEL: DISABLED AMER VETS

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The findings of his physical evaluation board (PEB)  be  set  aside,  he  be
reinstated and placed on the disabled retired list.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The PEB did not consider the seriousness of his medical condition  and  also
did not consider his length  of  service.   He  believes  that  his  medical
history is proof that the board did not fully appreciate the seriousness  of
his illness.  He is  rated  100%  disabled  by  the  Department  of  Veteran
Affairs, has spent many years as an outpatient in the VA medical system  and
has been hospitalized three or four  times  for  this  psychosis.   He  also
believes that due to his service connected  disability,  he  was  unable  to
continue his position as a teacher.

In support of his request, the applicant submits two personal statements,  a
copy of DD Form 214, Report of Separation  from  the  Armed  Forces  of  the
United States, a copy of  his  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  Disability
Rating, a copy of DD Form  877,  Request  for  Medical/Dental  Records,  and
excerpts from his medical records.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Navy on active duty 25 February  1948  and  served
until his  24  February  1953  discharge.   In  May  1953,  he  applied  for
Department of Veterans Affairs disability compensation, providing a  medical
statement from a physician, stating that he experienced a  one-year  history
of nervousness, irritability and black outs, and on examination appeared  to
be suffering from a psychosis.  His VA claim was denied because he  did  not
pursue completion of the claims process. He entered active duty in  the  Air
Force on 17 July 1953.  He was  disability  discharged  and  placed  on  the
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) on 8 July 1959 after 10  years,  11
months and 22 days of active duty service in the Navy  and  the  Air  Force.
On 30 November 1960, he was  removed  from  the  TDRL  and  discharged  with
severance pay.  His DVA medical records  show  that  he  began  experiencing
recurrent symptoms of paranoid feelings in  April  1974,  but  was  able  to
continue to work until 1979, after which he remained unemployed due  to  his
schizophrenia.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.   The  reason  the  applicant
could be found unfit for duty by the  Air  Force  at  a  certain  disability
level and later be granted a higher 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 stature  that  charges
the Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and  vital  force.   Once  an
individual has been declared unfit, the Service Secretaries are required  by
law to rate the condition based upon the degree of disability  at  the  time
of permanent disposition and not on future events.  No change in  disability
ratings can occur after permanent disposition,  even  though  the  condition
may become better or worse.  However, Title 38, USC authorizes  the  DVA  to
increase or  decrease  compensation  ratings  based  upon  the  individual’s
condition at the time of future evaluations.

There is no evidence to support a higher rating at  the  time  of  permanent
disposition.  His case  was  properly  evaluated,  appropriately  rated  and
received full consideration under the provisions of AFM  35-4.   Action  and
disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance  with  Air  Force
directives, which implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19  Dec
03, 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 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.  Evidence has  not  been  presented  which
would lead us to believe  that  his  disability  discharge  and  the  final
disposition of his case were in error or  contrary  to  the  governing  Air
Force regulations, which implement the law.  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 this application  in Executive
Session on 2 March 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
            Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
            Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2003-02148:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 8 Dec 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR , dated 19 Dec 03.




               ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
               Panel Chair




Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01632

    Original file (BC-2003-01632.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01632 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for discharge be changed to reflect that he was discharged due to a medical condition, rather than unsatisfactory performance. The Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRSP recommends denial....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02630

    Original file (BC-2002-02630.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00712

    Original file (BC-2003-00712.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She contends she was administratively discharged because she entered active duty with a preexisting low IQ and mental disorder. DPPD’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states she joined the military in order to make a career of it. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 31 Jul 03.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03318

    Original file (BC-2002-03318.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    The IPEB recommended that he be discharged from the Air Force with an EPTS condition. The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 10 Oct 02, with a compensable disability rating of 10 percent. This code assigns disability rating based on percent of body surface and use of medications.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01473

    Original file (BC-2003-01473.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DVA denied the applicant service connected disability compensation for schizophrenia noting no evidence in his military record while he was on active duty or during the presumptive period (12 months) following discharge. The medical consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he was 17 when he joined the Air Force and that he had been an athlete most...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01026

    Original file (BC-2002-01026.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00222

    Original file (BC-2003-00222.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2003-02744

    Original file (BC-2003-02744.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Medical Consultant states the applicant was disability discharged with severance pay at 10% due to inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's Disease) after 21 months on the TDRL. While on active duty and associated with treatment for Crohn's Disease, the applicant was hospitalized in October 1996 and July 1997 for pancreatitis, inflammation of the pancreas. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant's contentions, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00224

    Original file (BC-2003-00224.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    No other medical records are available for review between the time of his separation exam and his 7 Nov 02 hospitalization. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant indicates the applicant was diagnosed with his cancer one week after discharge. Although complete service medical records are not available for review, the Consultant believes the applicant would have been placed on medical hold and retained on active...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01056

    Original file (BC-2002-01056.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that, at the time of separation from active duty with the Regular Air Force, the applicant’s left knee condition was not “unfitting” for continued active military service. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The additional advisory opinion is provided following review of the previous AFBCMR action granting the applicant...