RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00515
INDEX CODE: 108.02 108.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 Aug 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His removal from the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) and
medical discharge with severance pay be changed to a medical
retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Based on the seriousness of his injury, current condition, and
potential for other brain-related problems later in life, the 10%
disability rating is too low. Cited problems were short-term memory
loss, stiffness in his right side with awkward gait, and being more
defensive and impulsive than ever before. His parents have to help
with finances, school, and social skills.
The applicant’s complete submission, including letters from his
parents and grandmother and other documents, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The following highlights were extracted from the AFBCMR Medical
Consultant’s detailed history at Exhibit C, which was compiled from
the applicant’s available medical records (Exhibit B).
The applicant entered active duty on 21 Aug 01 and served as a
communications, networking, switching, and crypto systems apprentice.
On 18 Aug 02, he was found unconscious on the side of a road,
apparently the victim of an assault (details are limited), with facial
fractures that required surgery and a closed head injury that rendered
him unconscious for a week.
The applicant underwent rehabilitative treatment, evaluation, and
processing through the Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES).
On 5 Mar 03, after 1 year, 6 months and 14 days of active service, he
was placed on the TDRL in the grade of airman first class for closed
head trauma with diffuse axonal injury and cognitive disorder,
considerable social and industrial adaptability impairment, with a 50%
disability rating. Evaluations refer to the applicant being a
passenger in a motor vehicle accident shortly after his discharge from
the rehabilitation center around Mar 03, in which he sustained another
head injury with loss of consciousness (no medical records of this
event are available).
Follow-up TDRL evaluations eventually led to the applicant’s removal
from the TDRL and discharge, effective 24 Feb 05, as unfit for
military service due to cognitive disorder, not otherwise specified
(NOS), status post closed head trauma, with no significant
neurological deficits, with severance pay based on a 10% disability
rating.
On 15 Mar 05, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) granted service
connection for residuals of brain injury, rated 10% effective 25 Feb
05, based on Air Force/DVA evaluation and treatment reports and family
statements.
_________________________________________________________________
AFBCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. He provides a
detailed history of the applicant’s medical circumstances and
discusses the differences between a 10 and 30 percent disability
rating and the Air Force DES and the DVA disability programs. The
applicant’s neuropsychological testing and exam results noted no
difficulties with affect, grooming, manners, or perseveration
(inappropriate repetitive performance of simple tasks). Testing
indicated average problem solving skills and executive function. The
applicant’s successful pursuit of college courses and employment are
not consistent with abulia (apathy, lack of spontaneity and
initiative). Although his parents report that the applicant has an
increase in impulsivity and they provide guidance regarding important
decisions, there is no evidence in the numerous evaluations that this
warrants a higher rating for the applicant’s underlying cognitive
disorder. The preponderance of evidence of evaluation and testing is
consistent with the 10% rating.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 3 May 06 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit
D). 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 timely filed.
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 should be granted a medical retirement. The applicant’s
contentions were duly noted, as were those of his parents. However,
we do not find their assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the available evidence of record or the
detailed findings provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant. The
applicant has not established to our satisfaction that he was
incorrectly evaluated and rated by the Air Force DES. We therefore
agree with the recommendations of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has not sustained his burden of having suffered either an
error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis 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 13 June 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-00515 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 05, & Letter, dated
30 Mar 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 May 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 May 06.
KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
Panel Chair
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00744
RATING COMPARISON: Service IPEB – Dated 20080317 Condition Code Rating Cognitive Disorder s/p Closed Head Injury; Associated with PTSD, Depressive Disorder Migraine Headaches 8045‐9304 10% Not Unfitting VA (2 Mo. The Board noted that PEBs often combine multiple conditions under a single rating when those conditions considered individually are not separately unfitting and would not cause the member to be referred into the DES or be found unfit because of physical disability. Although the...
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...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00424
He was issued a permanent L3 profileandreferred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).Cognitive disorder; personality change due to concussive head injury; depressive disorderand anxiety disorder conditions, identified in the rating chart below, were also identified and forwarded by the MEB.The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the muscle Group XII shrapnel and fasciotomy injury with residual muscle fatigue/lack of endurancecondition as unfitting, rated 20%, with application of the...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00114
Since the injury he suffered from headaches and one isolated seizure in October 2004. The Board considered at length both the TDRL rating and the final rating recommendations at separation from the TDRL. The VASRD does allow for a 10% rating for the cranial defect and the Board, by simple majority, recommends addition of this condition as unfitting, coded 5296, with a 10% TDRL rating and a 10% final rating.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00248
Neurologic examination performed on December 3, 2004 was normal and he was ambulating without difficulty. However, the Board also noted residuals of frontal lobe injury not merely restricted to mild memory dysfunction that included problems other cognitive functions (decreased verbal processing, attention, and concentration), irritability, anger, and problems with impulse control reflected in neuropsychological testing and the initial VA mental health clinic encounter 9 months after...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02198
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Neurological examination revealed a mini mental status examination (MSE) of 30/30. The examiner opined that as a result of the accident, some of her mental symptoms were exacerbated and other new symptoms appeared.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02870
On 20 Mar 73, the Air Force PEB determined he was fit for duty, his condition existed prior to service without service aggravation, and recommended that he be removed from the TDRL. The presence of 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 an unusual occurrence and is not a basis to retroactively grant military disability...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00544
The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for Deafness in Left Ear with Tinnitus, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. At this time he no longer had any vertigo, incoordination, or headaches but continued to have tinnitus, absolute hearing loss in the left ear, and left facial nerve palsy. The 2008 PEB determined the CI was unfit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01398
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The IPEB noted she was pending surgery and granted her a 30 percent disability rating. However, at the time of the TDRL reevaluation, the applicant had not had the surgery and her physicians at the time were no longer recommending surgery. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultants evaluation, with attachments, is...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02236
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant summarized the information contained in the applicant’s personnel and medical records and states that the applicant’s condition of cognitive impairment is permanent, but is not judged to be stable, and does not meet or exceed a disability rating of 80 percent. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military...