Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02223
Original file (BC-2005-02223.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02223
                                             INDEX CODE:  108.00
      XXXXXXX                           COUNSEL:  DAKOTA COUNTY VSO

                                               HEARING    DESIRED:     NOT
INDICATED


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  16 January 2007


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her uncharacterized separation be changed to a disability discharge.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her medical conditions, i.e., tendonitis, bursitis,  and  stress  fractures,
are directly related to her military service.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a 28  June  2005  Department  of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision, extracts from  her  service  medical
records, and a statement from a civilian physician.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 January 2003, for a  period
of four years.  On 2 May 2003, she was diagnosed  with  Patellofemoral  Pain
Syndrome, which was determined to have existed  prior  to  service  and  not
aggravated by service.  On 12 May 2003, she was notified of the  commander’s
intent to recommend her entry level  separation  for  erroneous  enlistment.
After being advised of her  right  to  consult  with  military  counsel  and
submit statements in her behalf,  she  waived  her  right  to  do  so.   The
proposed discharge action was found legally  sufficient  and  the  discharge
authority approved  her  separation.   On  16  May  2003,  she  received  an
uncharacterized entry level separation for  erroneous  entry  (other).   She
completed 4 months and 10 days of active service.





The DVA denied her requests for  service-connected  disability  compensation
for Patellofemoral Pain Syndrom of both knees.  However, on  28  June  2005,
the DVA awarded her a combined compensable disability rating  of  20%,  upon
appeal.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the  records
is warranted and states, in part, that applicant’s condition  existed  prior
to service  and  there  is  no  indication  her  condition  was  permanently
aggravated by service.  A determination  of  permanent  service  aggravation
making  her  condition  ratable  and  compensable  would  have  resulted  in
disability severance pay which would be offset  dollar-for-dollar  from  her
DVA disability pay, offering no monetary benefit.

The fact that her condition later worsened and  was  rated  by  the  DVA  as
compensable  does  not  support  that  she  should   have   been   medically
discharged.  The military Disability Evaluation System (DES) is  established
to maintain  a  fit  and  vital  force  and  can  compensate  for  unfitting
conditions which render a member unable to perform  their  military  duties,
and then only  to  the  degree  of  severity  at  the  time  of  separation.
Although the Air Force is required to rate disabilities in  accordance  with
the DVA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, the DVA operates under  a  totally
separate system with a different statutory basis.  The  DVA  rates  for  any
and all service-connected conditions, to  the  degree  they  interfere  with
future employability, without consideration of fitness.   Whereas,  the  Air
Force rates a member's disability based on the degree  of  severity  at  the
time of separation.

The BCME Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  18
August 2006, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However,  as  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation  of  the  BCMR  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.  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  Docket  Number  BC-2005-02223
in Executive Session on 27 September 2006, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Vice Chair
                       Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
                       Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memo, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 Aug 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 06.



                                   MARILYN THOMAS
                                   Vice Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00978

    Original file (BC 2014 00978.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00978 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation of Disability, Existed Prior to Service (EPTS), Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) be changed to a service connected disability. The IPEB found the applicant unfit and recommended discharge noting the applicant’s medical condition, EPTS and had not been permanently aggravated...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00353

    Original file (BC-2010-00353.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS does not provide a recommendation. The Medical Consultant states that according to the clinical notes in the applicant’s records, on 10 Nov 08, the applicant indicated that she had knee problems prior to enlistment but had not sought medical care and failed to report this information to MEPS prior to her enlistment. It must be noted the Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005--00757

    Original file (BC-2005--00757.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00757 INDEX NUMBER: 145.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 JUL 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he was disability discharged with severance pay rather than retired and transferred on the Reserve Retired List on 1 November 2003, awaiting...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00300

    Original file (BC-2005-00300.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the mental health records are not available for review (only limited entries in the main service medical record), the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) narrative summary dated June 28, 2002 provides the most complete psychiatric summary available in the case file while she was on active duty. Had the Physical Evaluation Board concluded that service aggravated her condition, rating deductions for existing prior to service symptoms and for non-compensable personality...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01954

    Original file (BC-2005-01954.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The fact that the applicant has been granted service connected disability from the DVA does not entitle her to Air Force disability compensation. Applicant contends her psychiatric condition was aggravated by her Air Force Reserve service. We believe it is interesting to note that although the applicant was diagnosed with personality disorder while on active duty and reported symptoms of depressed mood at the time of her separation examination, she did not seek medical attention nor was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04510

    Original file (BC-2010-04510.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Narrative Summary states her condition of patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) was not present at the time of the medical history intake and physical examination and the doctor crossed out “Existed Prior to Enlistment.” She did not have knee problems prior to her enlistment. Therefore, someone at the Review Board Office must have agreed with her and the physician of record that her condition was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00236

    Original file (BC-2005-00236.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 May 03, the Air Force PEB recommended that she be discharged with severance pay, based on a diagnosis of right ulnar neuropathy, with a compensable disability rating of 10 percent. At the time of her TDRL reevaluation she reported the stimulator did not relieve her pain. 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 the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02827

    Original file (BC-2007-02827.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean that the condition is unfitting for continued military service. In the medical Consultant’s view, the preponderance of evidence of the record shows that the applicant’s scoliosis condition existed prior to service, and that her back pain was the natural progression of the condition. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01666

    Original file (BC-2003-01666.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The disability was rated at 10%. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 December 2003 for review and response within 30 days. We have reviewed her DVA rating decisions and find no evidence she was not properly rated at the time of her separation from the Air Force.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-00545

    Original file (BC-2010-00545.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00545 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 40 percent disability retirement rating she received be increased. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the record be changed to reflect the applicant...