RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03503
INDEX CODE: 108.02 110.02
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 Jun 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Apr 64 honorable release from active duty be changed to a
discharge for medical disability with entitlement to severance pay for
a right-ring finger injury incurred in Jan 62.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The record does not reveal the “accual [sic] compensation for [his]
injury of Jan 1962.”
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 Apr 60, for a
period of four years and served as a jet engine mechanic.
A 25 Jan 62 medical entry indicated the applicant caught his right
third finger in an engine bracket mount. He sustained a fracture of
the tip of the finger and a puncture wound that healed without
incident. The applicant continued to serve as a mechanic.
The applicant made no complaint regarding the finger during his
separation medical exam on 19 Mar 64. On 17 Apr 64, he was honorably
released from active duty at the expiration of his term of service
(TOS), in the grade of airman first class (A1C), after 3 years, 11
months and 29 days of active service, and transferred to the Air Force
Reserves (USAFR). On 18 Apr 66, after completing his military
obligation, he was honorably discharged from the USAFR in the grade of
A1C.
In 1981, the applicant filed a claim with the Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) for the finger injury. Apparently, two previous claims
had been denied. He complained of periodic pain, numbness and
tingling. He indicated that, in 1972, he re-injured the finger while
working with a drill fixture, which resulted in multiple fractures,
laceration, and nail dislocation. He contended loss of sensation from
the first injury resulted in the second injury, making the hand clumsy
and precluding him from working as a mechanic. His claim was denied
on 2 Feb 82, and again on 9 Mar 00.
In Nov 04, the applicant filed an appeal, seeming to ask that his
“compensation checks” be sent to him because his mother and brother
had been taking his checks since 1964. However, SAF/MRBR (the AFBCMR
intake office at Randolph AFB, TX) confirmed with the Air Force and
the DVA that the applicant was not receiving checks from either of
them. On 9 Nov 04, SAF/MRBR advised the applicant that no records
indicated he was processed under the Air Force Disability Evaluation
System (AFDES) and, unless he was retired by reason of physical
disability, there would be no basis to receive compensation from the
Air Force. The DVA confirmed he was not receiving compensation checks
from that organization. SAF/MRBR returned the application without
action and closed the case as the applicant’s request was unclear.
On 29 Dec 04, the applicant filed the current appeal.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant explains the differences between the Air
Force and DVA disability systems. Evidence of the record shows the
applicant’s in-service finger injury did not render him unfit for
continued military service and did not warrant processing through the
AFDES. Action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable,
reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the
law. Therefore, denial is recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant provided a 15-page handwritten statement and other
documents. He contends his injury did adversely impact his ability to
perform his job. His finger was very painful, especially when the
weather was cold and he bumped it. He was going to go to the base
hospital but then was interrupted by the demands of the Cuban Missile
Crisis. He also did not want to jeopardize his promotion. He claims
the Air Force did attempt to settle with him about the injury, that he
was to receive his base pay every month. He contends his mother stole
his compensation checks for over 30 years. He discusses his family
situation regarding his mother, brother and sister, and requests an
investigation into his circumstances.
A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, 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 the applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded he is eligible for a medical discharge with severance pay.
As evidenced by his available military personnel and medical records
and noted by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant, the applicant’s 1962
injury to his finger while in the Air Force did not render him unfit
or warrant processing through the AFDES. The medical entry indicated
the injury healed without incident, and he made no complaint regarding
the finger during his separation medical exam in 1965. The applicant
apparently re-injured his finger in 1972, years after his separation
from the military. The DVA has denied the applicant’s claims and
confirmed he receives no disability checks from them. The applicant
requests an investigation into the alleged theft of his compensation
checks by his family members. However, the AFBCMR does not contact
witnesses in behalf of an applicant, nor is it an investigative body.
The burden of providing sufficient evidence of probable material error
or injustice rests with each applicant and, in this case, the
applicant has not met his burden. We therefore agree with the
recommendations of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the
rationale expressed as the basis for our finding no compelling basis
on which to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 12 January 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-03503 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 Nov 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Nov 05.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Dec 05, w/atchs.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02696
His records be corrected to reflect that during the period of June 1966 through August 1967 he traveled via classified military orders to Vietnam and the Philippines in direct support of the Vietnam War. His injury resulting from burning his left hand on a generator does not qualify for CRSC. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03544
The remaining pertinent medical facts are contained in the evaluation prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR medical consultant states the evidence of record clearly show there were no medical conditions that warranted referral for disability evaluation while in the service including during the year leading up to his voluntary separation. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01220
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01220 INDEX CODE: 108.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 OCTOBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His disability discharge be changed to disability retirement, with a 100% compensable disability rating. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00326
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In her quest to become pregnant and have a family, with over 19 years of service, she elected to take the Special Separation Benefit (SSB) in order to pay for medical procedures she could not obtain in the military. Based on the documentation in the applicant’s master personnel file, she voluntarily applied to separate from the Air Force to receive the Special Separation Benefit being offered at that...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-04055
His left knee condition is not considered service connected by the DVA. We agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2003-04306
A review of his medical records reveals no record of such injuries, although while stationed at Kadena AB, he injured his back lifting furniture. The Medical Consultant states he asserts his back was injured during a rocket attack in Vietnam either by falling off a helicopter or when a comrade fell on his back seeking shelter. He also asserts his back and knee conditions were caused by his duties during aerial flight.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01933
DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his duodenal ulcer, back injury, quadruple heart bypass, and tinnitus are not combat related. For duodenal ulcer to qualify for CRSC, it must be presumptive to POW internment and so stated in the applicable rating decision. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03898
The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. In an additional DPPPR advisory, dated 22 June 2004, DPPPR indicates a member must provide documentation to support he/she was wounded as a direct result of enemy action and the injury received, or required, medical treatment by medical personnel. The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 June 2004 for review and response within 14 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04019
The BCMR Consultant states that according to the applicant’s Air National Guard Point Summary, the applicant was not on active duty during his 1982 hospitalization. On 24 November 1982, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) that concluded his depression was not incurred while entitled to basic pay and recommended medical disqualification and administrative discharge (not disability discharge). The applicant has not provided any evidence to show an injustice occurred at...