RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01416
INDEX NUMBER: 145.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: Disabled American Vets
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 DEC 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The transcripts of his Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) be corrected to
reflect that he did not receive treatment from a chiropractor and that he
purchased a brace himself.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He did not receive treatment from a chiropractor and his records need to be
clarified.
In support of his request, the applicant submits AF Form 356, Findings and
Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board and pages 15
through 17 of his Physical Evaluation Board transcript.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 December 1965, and
was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant.
He was referred to the PEB and on 16 July 1970, the PEB recommended
permanent retirement with 30% disability. Applicant did not concur with
the findings of the PEB and requested appearance before the Formal Physical
Evaluation Board (FPEB). On 19 August 1970, the FPEB recommended permanent
retirement with 60% disability. The applicant concurred with the
recommendation on 19 August 1970, and was subsequently permanently retired
by reason of physical disability on 10 September 1970.
He completed 20 years, 1 month and 2 days of active duty service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states the fact the applicant wore a
support for his back may have influenced the decision of the FPEB; however,
the statement that he sought the advice of a chiropractor or purchased the
brace himself had no effect on the outcome of the FPEB.
The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The applicant states he provided transportation to an elderly couple to the
chiropractor and was not treated by the chiropractor himself.
The applicant’s complete response 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. After a thorough review of the evidence
of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the
transcripts of the applicant’s FPEB should be changed. While we note the
concerns of the applicant in regards to changing a statement he provided to
the FPEB, we do not believe testimony that he was not seen by a
chiropractor or that he purchased the brace himself would have had a
decisive impact on the FPEB’S decision to permanently retire him with a 60%
disability rating. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim
of an error or injustice. It appears that the Air Force’s determination
concerning applicant’s condition was based on medical records not on
applicant’s testimony. 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 9 August 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2005-01416:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Mar 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 6 Jun 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 05.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jun 05.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03487
The IPEB recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a disability rating of 20%; because of his unfitting, ratable, and compensable condition; in accordance with DoD and Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) guidelines. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s records is warranted. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01206
Subsequent to being evaluated by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) and Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB), the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of AFR 35-4 (Placed on Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL)). Following a period of observation and treatment on TDRL status, he was permanently disability retired on 12 Jun 1986, with a disability rating of 40 percent for his condition and received pay in the grade of colonel, with over 26 years...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03630
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and recommended the applicant’s disability rating be increased to 80%. The Medical Consultant notes the applicant is left with residual deficits of severe loss of use of his left hand, right foot weakness requiring the use of a brace, and mild left leg weakness and associated spasticity limiting his ability to ambulate. They address the BCMR...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01143
Although changing the former member’s Air Force TDRL disability rating will not result in any additional monetary benefits for his heirs, the BCMR Medical Consultant opines that the preponderance of the evidence of the record warrants a higher TDRL disability rating than the 40 percent originally adjudicated and concludes that the evidence of the record most nearly approximates the 60 percent rating but notes that greater weight given to the relative contribution of the mood disorder and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01934
On 23 January 2003 after considering the applicant’s rebuttal, the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the applicant’s name be removed from the TDRL and that he be permanently retired because of physical disability at a disability rating of 30%. ____________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request. DPPD states the applicant’s request to be returned to active duty cannot be honored in that he has...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03123
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03123 INDEX CODE: 108.04 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 Apr 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be placed on the permanent disability retired list effective 17 Sep 05. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02697
According to DPPD, when a member is removed from the TDRL, a new DD Form 214 is not issued. The order becomes a permanent part of his military personnel file, and can be attached to his DD Form 214 reflecting his final disposition. Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that his disability discharge, placement on the TDRL on 19 July 1990 and the final disposition of his case on 9 September 1993 were in error or contrary to the governing Air Force instructions, which...
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied (Exhibit C). Prior to that date, an evaluation of 30% was assigned for severe, frequent attacks. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, I believe the applicant’s medical condition at the time of his retirement warrants a higher disability rating.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01531
On 5 December 1978, the MEB recommended he be forwarded to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that there is no evidence to support a higher disability rating at the time of the applicant’s separation. In deference to the comments of the BCMR Medical Consultant, which appear to be supported by the evidence of record, and...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01540
____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Sleep Apnea with CPAP was not included in the original package that went before the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)/Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The complete APFC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant does not recall waiving his option for an FPEB, but believes if he did it was directly...