RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03120
INDEX CODE: 108.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 Apr 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During his separation briefing, he was never informed of his need to
have a Medical Review Board review his case for a disability he
acquired during his service in 1981. It has been told to him that he
should have received payment from the date of his discharge.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 Jan 1979 for a period
of six years in the grade of airman basic.
He was honorably discharged on 8 Jan 85 under the provisions of AFR 39-
10 (Expiration Term of Service) in the grade of senior airman. He was
credited with six years of active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the Medical Consultant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Medical Consultant recommended denial noting the applicant was
separated at the expiration of his term of obligated active military
service. Nearly four years prior to his separation, the applicant was
involved in a motorcycle accident sustaining multiple fractures,
bruises, abrasions and a chin laceration. He required surgery for a
femur fracture. The evidence of the record shows he recovered from
his injuries and returned to unrestricted military duties except for
limitation from hazardous noise due to hearing loss unrelated to the
accident. Seventeen years after separation, the Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) has granted service connection for the residuals of
injuries related to that motorcycle accident and his hearing loss and
associated tinnitus. The applicant now requests change of records to
show disability discharge.
The Medical Consultant indicated the fact that the applicant has been
granted him service-connected disability from the DVA does not entitle
the applicant to Air Force disability compensation. The military
service disability systems, operating under Title 10, and the DVA
disability system, operating under Title 38, are complementary systems
not intended to be duplicative. Operating under different laws with a
different purpose, determinations made by the Department of Defense
(DoD) under Title 10 and the DVA under Title 38 are not determinative
or binding on decisions made by the other. The mere fact that the DVA
may grant service-connected compensation ratings following separation
or retirement does not establish eligibility for similar action from
the Air Force.
The Military Disability Evaluation System, established to maintain a
fit and vital fighting force can, by law under Title 10, only offer
compensation for those disease or injuries which specifically rendered
a member unfit for continued active service, were the cause for
termination of their career, and then only for the degree of
impairment present at the time of separation. For an individual to be
considered unfit for military service, there must be a medical
condition that prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank
and experience. Evidence of the record shows that the residuals of
injuries incurred in the motorcycle accident did not interfere with
the applicant’s military duties. His hearing loss also did not
interfere with performance of his military duties but he was
reassigned to duties that would not subject his ears to further
hazardous noise.
The DVA operates under a separate set of laws and specifically
addresses long-term medical care, social support and educational
assistance. 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. The DVA is also empowered to reevaluate veterans
periodically for the purpose of changing their disability awards if
their level of impairment varies over time. Thus, the two systems
represent a continuum of medical care and disability compensation that
starts with entry on to active duty and extends for the life of the
veteran. By law, payment of DVA compensation and military disability
pay is prohibited. The presence of medical conditions that were not
unfitting while in service, and were not the cause of separation or
retirement, that later progress in severity causing disability
resulting in service-connected DVA compensation is not a basis to
retroactively grant military disability discharge or disability
compensation.
In the Medical Consultant’s view, action and disposition in this case
were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force
directives that implement the law, and that no change in the records
is warranted.
A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit
C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 14
Oct 05 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 do not find it sufficient to override the rationale
provided by the Medical Consultant. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence that, at time of his separation from active duty, the
applicant was unfit to perform the duties of his rank and office,
within the meaning of the law, we agree with the recommendation of the
Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of
establishing he has suffered either an error or an injustice.
Accordingly, 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-
2004-03120 in Executive Session on 15 Nov 05, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Sep 04.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 13 Oct 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Oct 05.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04226
At the time of his retirement physical he denied otoxins, vertigo, or ear fullness and tinnitus, though the physician's impression was bilateral sensory hearing loss on his left ear and conductive deafness on his right ear. His bilateral hearing loss is documented as incurred while on active duty but is not considered to be combat-related. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00623
In support of his request, applicant provided documentation extracted from his medical records. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 16 Jun 66 and referred the applicant to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) with a diagnosis of vascular headaches, severe, secondary to head trauma. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant's submission, we find no evidence of an error and...
'The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request .and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The records indicate that the applicant met a Medical Evaluation Board on 28 Aug 73, and his history then reflected back pain which was not further evaluated, nor was this done on subsequent reevaluations when he continued to note the back pain on the medical history form. Even assuming the minimal compression fracture noted some...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00732
His CRSC application was disapproved on 19 Aug 04 based upon the fact that his service-connected medical conditions were determined not to be combat- related. DPPD provided a review of his relevant medical history and states no evidence can be found to indicate any of the claimed conditions were caused by a combat related injury or event. After a thorough review of the available evidence of record, it is our opinion that the service-connected medical conditions the applicant believes are...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00049
The applicant’s other conditions were not separately unfitting at the time of evaluation in the disability evaluation system and did not warrant separate ratings. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the fact the applicant has been granted certain service connected disability rating from the DVA does not entitle him to Air Force disability compensation or a change in existing military disability ratings. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04341
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04341 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service connected disability be re-evaluated under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) program. The applicant has requested that his service medical records be re-evaluated under the CRSC program. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01248
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01248 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 DEC 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical conditions, impaired hearing and tinnitus, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03621
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, line 10(b) is marked YES, as the disability did occur during a time of war in the line of duty. What the Air Force is telling him is that in no way an Air Force member can have a combat-related injury if they were medically retired and entered the Air Force prior to the date indicated on the form. DPPD states the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00237
Applicant's service medical records cannot be located. His medical records cannot be located and documentation contained in his personnel records does not confirm hearing loss while in service. 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.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states that evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation indicate the applicant was fit and medically qualified for continued military service or appropriate separation and did not have any physical or mental' condition which would have warranted consideration under the provisions of AFI 36-3212. This, obviously, did not apply to the applicant, as he had been found fit to return to...