ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02168
INDEX CODE: 108.01
COUNSEL: DAV
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her discharge for hardship reasons be changed to reflect that she was
either medically retired or discharged for medical reasons with severance
pay.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 Dec 94 and was
voluntarily discharged from the Air Force for hardship reasons on 1 Jun 03.
She served 8 years, 5 months, and 17 days on active duty.
On 27 Feb 04, the Board considered and denied a similar appeal submitted by
the applicant. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicant’s request and the rationale of the earlier
decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E.
In her request for reconsideration, counsel states that while on active
duty, she repeatedly went to military physicians with complaints of lower
back pain of a severity that prevented her from performing her military
duties. Her complaints were dismissed by military physicians due to the
"absence of clinical evidence" of anything wrong based on x-rays with
negative findings. However, no MRI was ever performed or further physical
tests conducted. It is clear that her complaints were valid with several
conditions undiagnosed. She had multiple disabilities that were sufficient
to prevent her from performing her duties commensurate with her rank and
experience, which is collaborated with first-hand observation of her
performance by her direct supervisor, flight commander and functional
manager.
In support of her request, applicant provided her counsel's statement,
additional copies of documentation previously submitted, statements of
support, and documents extracted from her post-service medical records.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in
support of her appeal, we remain unpersuaded that the applicant’s records
should be corrected to reflect that she was separated for disability
reasons. We carefully reviewed the evidence submitted in support of her
appeal. The applicant contends medical conditions that she suffers were
not diagnosed while on active duty because of inappropriate medical
attention. As previously noted by this Board, the determining factor as to
whether or not an individual is to be processed through the disability
evaluation system is whether or not the medical condition precludes the
member from performance of their military duties. The fact that a
condition exists does not in and by itself, mandate processing through the
disability evaluation system. While she may have experienced some
difficulties, we are not persuaded by the evidence presented that her
conditions, whether diagnosed or any that may have existed and were not
diagnosed were disqualifying and prevented her from reasonably performing
her military duties at the time. Therefore, it is our opinion that
although medical conditions existed which may have worsened in the future
to the point of rendering her unfit for duty, those conditions were not the
reason for her separation and at that time did not qualify her for
disability processing. In view of the above, we do not find an adequate
basis to favorably consider the requested relief.
2. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 reconsidered Docket Number BC-2003-02168
in Executive Session on 5 Aug 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 27 Feb 04, w/Exhibits.
Exhibit G. DD Form 149, dated 29 Jun 04, w/atchs.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02168
Evidence has not been provided by the applicant, which would lead us to believe that she was unfit due to a physical disability at the time of her discharge. Therefore, since there were no disqualifying medical conditions at the time of her separation, we see no reason why she would have been eligible for consideration in the disability evaluation system. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00314 INDEX CODES 110.02 111.02 111.05 126.04 134.01 134.02 XXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: No XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 1984 general discharge for “Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions” be upgraded to honorable and the narrative reason be changed to “Medical...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00883 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for her separation, Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service, be changed. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPZ reviewed applicant’s request and recommends...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00811
On 15 August 2005, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) reviewed the applicant’s records and referred the applicant’s case to an IPEB for further evaluation. The IPEB findings stated the applicant’s condition did not prevent her from reasonably performing her duties of her office, grade, rank, or rating; nor did it interfere with her day-to-day duties. On 18 December 2006, the applicant submitted a hardship request for a 9-12 month extension to allow surgery for both ankles and recuperation time.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00597
She currently receives treatment through the VA. For these reasons, she is asking that her military record be corrected to reflect a medical discharge for the disqualifying medical conditions that she had while still on active duty. A review of the service medical record finds a history of headaches, which existed prior to service. The neurology evaluation report is not present in the record.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03168
The applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board, which denied her request. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant provides specific examples that she indicates cause the contested OPR to be in violation of Air Force Instruction 36-2406. In her response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01146
She followed the guidelines and submitted her request to withdraw her request 88 days before the date-of- separation (DOS). The Air Force failed to properly process her request to withdraw her voluntary request to separate. The applicant’s counsel states the applicant’s request for withdrawal was not properly processed and since her request for separation was voluntary, she had the right to withdraw her request for separation.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01684
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: All of his medical records concerning a 6 November 2002 psychiatric consult and all follow-up consults were not available for the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). On 5 February 2001, an Informal PEB (IPEB) found him unfit due to Major Depressive Disorder with definite social and industrial adaptability impairment and recommended he be placed on the TDRL with a 30% rating. The BCMR Medical...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00356 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for her discharge be changed. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of...