RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00623
            INDEX CODE:  108.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 Aug 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he was totally disabled  after  his  car
accident in 1966.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His military record should clearly indicate he was  totally  disabled  after
his  car  accident  while  on  active  duty  in  1965.   He  should  receive
disability pay from 1966 through  1986  since  the  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA) did not award him 100% disability until 1986.

In support of his request, applicant provided documentation  extracted  from
his medical records.  His  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  His injuries were  the  result
of injuries received while a passenger in a vehicle involved  in  a  head-on
collision. On 23 Jun 66, the PEB found him unfit  because  of  his  physical
disability and recommended he be placed on the Temporary Disability  Retired
List  (TDRL)  with  a  compensable  percentage  of  50  percent.   Applicant
concurred with the recommended findings of the PEB.  He was  placed  on  the
TDRL on 21 Jul 66.  On 28 Feb 68, he  failed  to  report  for  his  periodic
reevaluation and his pay was terminated on 31 Mar 68.  On 20 Jul 71, he  was
removed from the TDRL and honorably discharged without benefits.  He  served
9 months and 24 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states psychiatric evaluation while  in  service  diagnosed  a  longstanding
personality disorder.  DVA examiners subsequently considered  organic  brain
disorder due to brain trauma based on his report of loss  of  consciousness,
jaw fracture,  a  prolonged  neurologic  recovery  and  large  facial  scar.
However, evidence of the primary medical  documentation  shows  no  loss  of
consciousness  and  no  neurologic  sequelae  at  the  time  of  injury  and
diagnosis of a longstanding  personality  disorder  argues  against  a  head
injury of  sufficient  magnitude  to  have  resulted  in  an  organic  brain
syndrome accounting for his problems (of note was a report of a  pre-service
head injury that did result in a loss of consciousness for  several  hours).
Neuro-psychological  testing  over  15  years  later  indicated  essentially
intact cognitive abilities in normal range.  He now  requests  a  change  of
his military records to state he was totally disabled in order to  influence
the DVA to grant retroactive disability  compensation  at  the  100  percent
level.  His records do not show his condition warranted a  determination  of
totally disabled at the time of his separation.

The Military Disability Evaluation System can only  offer  compensation  for
those service incurred diseases or injuries which  specifically  rendered  a
member unfit for continued service, were the cause for termination of  their
career, and then only for the degree of impairment present at  the  time  of
separation and not based on future possibilities.  Once  an  individual  has
been declared unfit, the  Secretaries  are  required  by  law  to  rate  the
condition based upon the degree of  disability  at  the  time  of  permanent
disposition and not on future events.  The DVA, operating under Title 38  is
chartered to offer compensation  and  care  to  eligible  veterans  for  any
service-connected disease  or  injury  without  regard  to  whether  it  was
unfitting for continued military service.  This differs  substantially  from
the requirement  that  the  condition  have  been  incurred  or  permanently
aggravated  beyond  the  natural  progression  of  the  condition  and  been
unfitting at the time for military disability compensation.   Title  38  was
written  to  allow  compensation  ratings  for  conditions  that  were   not
unfitting for military service at the time of separation.  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  change  military
disability records.

The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25  Apr
06 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 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 find no evidence  of  an  error
and are not persuaded by his assertions that he has been the  victim  of  an
injustice.   The  evidence  of  record  shows   that   the   applicant   was
appropriately processed through the  disability  evaluation  system  at  the
time and it appears that the final disposition of his case  was  proper  and
in accordance with  the  governing  directives,  which  implement  the  law.
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.  In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief   sought   in   this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2005-
00623 in Executive Session on 1 Jun 06, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated21 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Apr 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 06.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair