Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03802
Original file (BC-2003-03802.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03802
            INDEX CODE:  108.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was  discharged  for  medical
reasons.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had two operations at Travis AFB,  CA  and  should  have  been  medically
discharged.  The Department of Veterans' Affairs  (DVA)  has  rated  him  at
zero percent for eight years.

In support of his request,  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  his  Honorable
Discharge certificate.  His complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  27  Jun  63.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman second class,  having  assumed
that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Feb 66.

A Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) convened on 25 Aug 64 found the  applicant
unfit for continued service with a diagnosis  of  sacroidosis,  generalized,
minimal with a compensable percentage of zero percent,  and  recommended  he
be separated with severance pay.  The applicant disagreed with the  findings
and recommended disposition, demanded a  formal  hearing  of  his  case  and
requested he be retained on active duty.  On 3 Sep 64, the  Physical  Review
Council considered the case and determined that he  was  physically  fit  to
perform the duties of his grade and directed that he be returned to duty.

On 27 Jun 67, the applicant was released from active duty at the  expiration
of his term of service and  transferred  to  the  Air  Force  Reserves.   He
served 4 years on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states the applicant was diagnosed with sarciodosis while  on  active  duty.
The  clinical  significance  of  this  condition  varies  widely   from   an
asymptomatic and completely benign condition to a serious  life  threatening
one depending on the tissues involved and severity of involvement.   He  had
asymptomatic benign involvement.  Had he concurred with the findings of  the
PEB he would have been discharged with severance  pay.   His  condition  did
not warrant a finding greater than zero percent and he would not  have  been
eligible for a disability retirement.  He appealed to remain on active  duty
and he completed his term of service and was honorably discharged.

The mere presence of a condition does not qualify a  member  for  disability
evaluation.  There must be a medical condition that prevents performance  of
any work commensurate with rank and experience.  The  DVA  is  chartered  to
offer compensation and  care  to  all  eligible  veterans  for  any  service
connected disease or injury without regard to whether it was  unfitting  for
continued military  service.   No  change  to  the  applicant's  records  is
warranted.  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 12  May
04 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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  are  not
persuaded by the evidence provided that the reason for  his  discharge  from
the Air Force was inappropriate, erroneous, or that he was denied rights  to
which he was entitled.  We note that the applicant was referred through  the
disability evaluation system.  After consideration  of  his  appeal  of  the
decision to discharge him for disability reasons, the FPEB  determined  that
he was not unfit for worldwide duty and determined he should be returned  to
duty.  We see no evidence, which would lead us to believe  that  a  physical
disability existed at the time of his subsequent discharge that  would  have
disqualified him from worldwide  military  service.   Since  there  were  no
disqualifying medical conditions at the time of his separation,  we  see  no
reason why he would have been referred back into the  disability  evaluation
system.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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-
03802 in Executive Session on 30 Jun 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 16 Apr 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 May 04.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-03176

    Original file (BC-2011-03176.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The complete DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends rescinding the applicant’s 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00507

    Original file (BC-2003-00507.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-00507 INDEX NUMBER: 145.00 COUNSEL: Veterans of Foreign Wars HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that at the time of separation he received a higher disability rating and if this new disability rating qualifies him for medical retirement, he be medically retired with...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01236

    Original file (BC-2003-01236.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 July 2001, the SAFPC determined the applicant was physically unfit for continued military service due to a physical disability which existed prior to service and directed she be separated without disability benefits. The disability processing records indicate the applicant was treated fairly throughout her DES process and was properly rated under disability laws and policy at the time of her medical discharge. The applicant’s case was processed through the medical...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003229

    Original file (0003229.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    If it had he would not have separated from the Air Force. DPPRR states that on page 30 of the applicant’s original package, it is clearly documented that in October 1990, the applicant was diagnosed with Sarcoidosis and in April 1994 with Hepatitis C. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s letter dated 13 August 2001 further states that the member was aware of his medical condition at the time of separation. The applicant’s medical records clearly show that he was diagnosed with “Hepatitis C” in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002795

    Original file (0002795.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates that the applicant had a known diagnosis from his years of active duty, which remained quiescent for some 8 or 9 years before causing significant problems. Therefore, DPPD recommends the applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit D). The applicant’s medical records indicate that there were no unfitting conditions that would disqualify him for worldwide military...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01640

    Original file (BC-2013-01640.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    No military or civilian medical documentation is supplied for care during CY 2002 or at the time of her reported worsening condition. 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 office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit C....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102096

    Original file (0102096.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-01313

    Original file (BC-2004-01313.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant opines no change in the records is warranted. The BCMR Medical Consultant concludes evidence of the record shows that the back injury was not the cause for separation, did not render the applicant unfit for continued military service and did not warrant evaluation in the disability evaluation system. ___________________________________________________________________ THE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03675

    Original file (BC-2003-03675.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    She did not know she could be medically retired and had not researched her options at the time of her discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Medical Consultant recommended denial indicating the evidence of record did not show the applicant’s medical condition was unfitting at the time of her separation. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at...