RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01900
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 November 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be changed to show a medical discharge with a 60 percent
disability rating.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Since the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC) ruled his
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge was unjust and
changed his discharge to general, he believes his overall discharge should
be changed to a medical discharge with a rating of 60 percent.
In support of his application, applicant submits a personal statement,
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) narrative summary, PEB findings and other
documents relative to his issues.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 May 1992 and was
progressively promoted to the rank of staff sergeant with a date of rank of
1 May 1999. While on active duty he experienced recurring episodes of
syncope and near syncope (1995-1996) leading to a diagnosis of
supraventricular tachycardia in 1997. In August 1999 the Informal Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB) and Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) found
the applicant unfit and recommended discharge with severance pay with a
compensable rating of 10 percent.
In February 2000, the applicant’s commander preferred two specifications of
violating a lawful regulation by wrongfully using, sharing and discussing
WAPS testing material. In May 2000, the applicant requested discharge in
lieu of court-martial and reviewing authorities recommended accepting the
applicant’s request.
Because there were two potential bases for discharge, disability discharge
with severance pay and separation in lieu of court-martial for misconduct,
the applicant’s case was reviewed by SAFPC as dual action. As a result, the
Council directed administrative discharge for misconduct effective 21 July
2000 with a UOTHC discharge. He was credited with 8 years, 2 months and 1
day of active duty. In 2003 the Air Force Discharge Review Board upgraded
his discharge to a general discharge.
____________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records
is warranted. The SAFPC determines under which basis for discharge the
airman will be separated, misconduct or disability as well as the
characterization of service. Unless the medical disability is the cause of
the misconduct or is of a compelling and devastating nature, the SAFPC
consistently decides to separate based on the misconduct. The applicant’s
supraventricular tachycardia was not the cause of his misconduct and did
not represent a disability of a gravity that warranted disability discharge
rather than administrative. Similarly, the applicant’s knee condition was
unrelated to his misconduct and did not represent a grave or serious
condition that arose to the level of granting an honorable disability
separation.
The military service disability systems, operating under Title 10, and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability system, operating under
Title 38, are complementary systems not intended to be duplicative.
Operating under different laws with a different purpose, independent
decisions/determinations made by the DOD under Title 10 and the DVA under
Title 38 are not determinative or binding on decisions made by the other.
By law, payment of DVA disability compensation and military pay is
prohibited.
Even if the applicant had been disability discharged with severance pay for
his unfitting condition, the fact that the DVA has granted a higher service
connected disability rating four years later is also no basis to
retroactively change the military disability ratings. Action and
disposition in this case are proper and in compliance with Air Force
directives that implement the law.
BCMR Medical Consultant's complete 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 26
July 2006 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 an error or an injustice. Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR
Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The
applicant is now seeking a medical discharge with a 60 percent disability
rating. The applicant’s case was properly processed through the Secretary
of the Air Force Personnel Council as a dual action case where a
determination was made that he be discharged for misconduct, rather than
discharging him with a disability discharge with severance pay. The AFDRB
in 2003 upgraded the applicant’s under other than honorable conditions
discharge to under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The
applicant’s medical condition was not the cause of his misconduct and did
not represent a disability of a gravity that warranted disability discharge
rather than administrative. Furthermore, his knee condition was unrelated
to his misconduct and did not represent a grave or serious condition that
arose to the level of granting an honorable disability separation.
Therefore, we believe the processing of the discharge and the
characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in
accordance with Air Force policy. However, former servicemembers are
authorized treatment from DVA under the provisions of Title 38, USC. Title
38, USC allows the DVA to provide compensation for servicemembers who incur
a service-connected medical condition while on active duty and to increase
or decrease the disability rating based on the seriousness of medical
condition throughout the former servicemember’s life span. In this
respect, we note the applicant currently has a combined DVA disability
rating of 60 percent. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, 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-2005-
01900 in Executive Session on 14 September 2006 under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 25 Jul 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 06.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02228
The IPEB noted that she had declined further “ablation surgery.” On 9 March 2006, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ 5 APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 15 Feb 13, by letter, the applicant amended her request and now ask to be medically retired instead of being returned to duty. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00105
On 16 Jun 10, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) reviewed the case file and medical records and also recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent for diagnosis of POTS using VASRD code 8299-8210. Her condition has not changed in severity, the DVA made their rating by correctly applying the laws for analogous ratings. In this respect, the applicant is requesting that her medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement based on the 80 percent...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02464
The applicant’s medical records reveal the following: A narrative summary prepared for an Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) in January 2000, indicated the applicant was diagnosed with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) with poor control on medical therapy, depression - stable by history. She would still be an active duty member of the Air Force had she not been medically discharged for a condition (supraventricular tachycardia) she was told was too severe to remain on active duty and...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01816
The FPEB recommended permanent disability retirement with a 10% disability rating. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: In response to the AFPC/DPSD evaluation, counsel responds that the applicant’s rating has to be based on the rating criteria, in other words, the DVA rating chart, rather than pulling a percentage of out thin air and applying it to...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01873
Based on a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) report, on 3 Nov 09, the applicant was diagnosed with neurocardiogenic syncope and his case was referred to Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 29 Jun 10, the FPEB agreed with the unfit findings of the IPEB, but found his conditions service aggravated and recommended DWSP, with a combined compensable disability rating of 20 percent, with a 10 percent disability rating assigned to each condition. He understands the disability boards must...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01005
The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant’s total combined permanent disability percentage should be increased from 40 to 60 percent to reflect the severe nature of his bilateral foot pain, which prevented him from reasonably performing his military duties. In the applicant’s case, the Air Force limited its unfit finding to his bilateral foot condition since that was the only condition limiting the performance of his military...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02514
Although she had normal studies, the CI continued to report syncopal episodes and was referred to the heart clinic for possible electrophysiology studies. The EKG recorded normal sinus rhythm and no signs of atrial tachycardia or an accessory pathway (successful ablation).The VA Compensation and Pensionexamdated 18 November 2005, 3 months after separation, recorded the CI’s syncopal history, diagnoses, and treatment, and indicated the condition was well controlled with medication. The...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01389
Pre-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Vasovagal Syncope8299-821010%Tachycardia/Vasovagal Syncope7099-701110%20040401Other X 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 520040401 Rating: 10%Combined: 30%Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20040612 ( most proximate to date of separation [DOS]). The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.The PEB coded the syncopal condition analogously to 8210 for vasovagal nerve impairment. RECOMMENDATION :...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02004
Details of his evaluation are at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel and applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and provided statements. While we are reluctant to substitute our judgment for that of medical personnel who are qualified to review and make recommendations concerning medical issues, after thoroughly reviewing applicant’s submission and the evidence of record, we believe there is...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03604
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03604 INDEX CODE: 100.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 May 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her administrative discharge should be changed to a medical discharge, and all debts owed by her be relinquished. She completed 4 years, 6 months, and 12 days of active service,...