ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-04019
INDEX NUMBER: 108.02
XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His disability retirement rating of 40% be changed to 100%.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 5 Oct 04, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request
as indicated above (Exhibit E). In making their determination the
Board adopted the rationale of the BCMR Medical Consultant as
contained in the advisory opinion at Exhibit C. In a letter dated 14
Nov 04, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Board’s
decision (Exhibit F). The applicant stated that on the advice of his
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) hearing officer, he should
request the Air Force correct his records so that he would be rated
for his condition of “Filariasis.” The applicant was advised by the
AFBCMR in a letter dated 19 Apr 05 that his request did not meet the
criteria for reconsideration by the Board (Exhibit G). On 25 Apr 05,
the Board prepared a draft response to a Congressional Inquiry and
advised the applicant’s Congressman of the status of his case
(Exhibit H).
On 28 Sep 05, the AFBCMR responded to a second Congressional Inquiry
(Exhibit I), which asked that it be explained to the applicant how
the DVA could grant the applicant an increase in his disability
rating when the Air Force would not using the same information. The
Congressman was referred to the original advisory prepared by the
BCMR Medical Consultant, which explained the differences between the
two systems (Exhibit J). It was pointed out that the DVA indicated
that their rating decision, dated 4 Feb 94, which denied the
applicant service connection for edema of both lower extremities, was
“clearly and unmistakably erroneous.” The DVA, therefore, granted
the applicant service connection retroactively to the day after he
retired from the Air Force. It was pointed out that the applicant’s
edema had been considered by the Air Force at the time of his
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), but was not found to be a ratable
unfitting condition at the time. It was noted that the DOD only
considers the degree to which a condition is unfitting at the
specific point in time the PEB takes place. However, as long as
service connection is established, the DVA will evaluate a condition
for possible disability benefits. The Congressman was advised that
information regarding the DVA’s rating decision on the applicant
would be sent back to the Board for review to determine if their
decision in the applicant’s case should be reconsidered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing the complete record of evidence, we still do
not find evidence of an error or injustice. Based on the information
submitted in the applicant’s Congressional complaint, it appears he
does not understand the differences between the DoD disability
evaluation system and the Department of Veterans affairs system. In
that regard, we believe the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation
adequately explains the differences between the two systems.
Additionally, we note that the DVA has now granted the applicant
service connection for edema of both lower extremities, which they
originally denied. We further note that the Air Force also
considered this condition at the time it evaluated the applicant, but
determined the condition was not unfitting at the time the
determination was made. In our view, there is insufficient evidence
to conclude that the applicant was not properly evaluated at the
time. The increased disability rating he has received from the DVA
provides a good example of how the system is designed to work.
Therefore, we do not find a basis to change our earlier determination
in this case.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2003-
04019 in Executive Session on 27 October 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. ROP, dated 3 Nov 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Nov 04.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Apr 05.
Exhibit H. Draft Congressional Response, dated 25 Apr 05.
Exhibit I. Congressional Inquiry, dated 19 Sep 05.
Exhibit J. Draft Congressional Response, dated 28 Sep 05.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04019
The applicant was recommended for permanent retirement with a disability rating of 40%. The applicant’s leg edema was considered at the time he was disability retired with a 40% rating for his back condition, but was not determined to be unfitting for military duty. The service medical records also support the conclusion that at the time of his disability evaluation, his leg edema was not severe enough to be considered unfitting for continued duty as a medical services technician.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00669-2
On 2 May 79, applicant submitted an application to the AFBCMR requesting medical discharge with 100% disability. The Medical Consultant states the fact that she has been granted service connection for her disability by the DVA does not entitle her to Air Force disability compensation. The Medical Consultant's evaluation, is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded that she was not fit for...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1998-01124C
The decision noted the treatment for anxiety in the service and the 22 May 04 opinion of a DVA examination that concluded the applicant suffered from schizophrenia either during his military service or, more likely, in the year following military service in 1976. In a DD Form 149 dated 2 Sep 04, the applicant requested reconsideration, and submitted his 100% DVA rating for service- connected schizophrenia, 24 years after his discharge from the Air Force. The Consultant provided additional...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2003-03798-2
On 29 April 2004, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request that his records be corrected to show that his medical problems were the cause of his discharge. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. The applicant has provided additional evidence through his Congressman’s office and requests that the Board reconsider his application. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01259
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the applicants request to supplant her discharge with a medical retirement. A 2 Nov 04 MEB finding recommended the applicant be returned to duty, and that previous profile restrictions be renewed with a new expiration date of 23 Nov 06. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2008-01831
_________________________________________________________________ AFBCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request for his honorable discharge to be changed to a medical retirement. The applicant's mental health providers recommended administrative discharge or cross-training. After reviewing the documentation submitted and the evidence of record we find no evidence to reflect the applicant’s anxiety disorder was of such...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2000-00961-2
A summary of the evidence considered and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board is set forth in the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. On 10 January 2002, in response to a congressional inquiry, in behalf of the applicant, the AFBCMR denied the applicant’s request for reconsideration of her application (Refer to Exhibit G). To support this assertion, the applicant provided a personal statement, a statement from a Forensic Investigator who opines that the signature on the letter...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02147
________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends approval, noting the applicants record should be amended to reflect, as a minimum, the applicant was placed on active duty orders for pay and points on 5 Mar 11 and remained so until his medical retirement effective 29 Aug 12. The applicants request is duly noted; however, we did not find the evidence provided substantial enough to override the opinions...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03549
On 9 Oct 69, a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) recommended he be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a combined compensable rating of 70%, with a diagnosis of arteriosclerotic heart disease and gout. Since the 1994 NAS Report, the DVA does not grant presumptive service connection for atherosclerotic heart disease unless it has been medically established that the heart disease was due to non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus associated with Agent Orange. For...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00508
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. There is no information to confirm he incurred injuries to his shoulders while performing combat related duties. _________________________________________________________________ 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...