RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02615
INDEX CODE: 108.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 February 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show he was awarded a disability retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His release from medical hold and return to the Air Force Reserve was
wrong. He still suffers from chronic pain (taking 60 mg of morphine and up
to 40 mg hydrocodone daily), inability to fully straighten his left leg,
problems with both knees, and limited range of motion of the right
shoulder, all stemming from a motor vehicle accident while he was serving
on extended active duty. In addition, his detached retina, occurring while
he was on active duty, was not considered by the Physical Evaluation Board
(PEB).
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement;
copies of medical records involving his injuries and treatment; and his
discharge certificates from active duty.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 1 March 1968, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the
rank of airman basic (E-1) at the age of 19 for a period of four years. He
served as a Munitions Maintenance Specialist and was progressively promoted
to the grade of sergeant (E-4) with a date of rank of 1 January 1970. He
was honorably discharged on 29 February 1972 for expiration of term of
service and transferred to the Air Force Reserve (AFR).
The applicant continuously served in the AFR in positions of increasing
responsibility attaining the rank of senior master sergeant with a date of
rank of 1 March 1996. In January 2002, the applicant was ordered to
extended active duty and deployed to San Antonio, Texas, to serve as a
munitions superintendent.
On 23 May 2003, the applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident near
his place of duty, sustaining multiple injuries. Following treatment at
local civilian hospitals, he was discharged to a rehabilitation facility on
6 June 2003 at Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC). On 11 June 2003,
following his treatment for rehabilitation and pain management, the
applicant was discharged to home on convalescent leave with plans for
continued rehabilitation on an outpatient basis at his home in Oklahoma.
The applicant remained on active duty orders until completion of his
treatment and evaluation in the Disability Evaluation System (DES). There
is no evidence the applicant ever returned to work.
The applicant was referred into the DES in February 2005. The Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) conducted 17 February 2005 referred the applicant’s
case to the PEB. On 4 May 2005, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board
(IPEB) considered the evidence of the applicant’s medical records and
personal records and returned the applicant to duty. The applicant was
released from active duty on 31 May 2005, and returned to Reserve status.
There is no documentation to indicate he has participated in Reserve
activities since his return to duty.
Prior to consideration by the IPEB, the applicant developed a retinal
detachment in the right eye and underwent eye surgery on 23 February 2005
to repair the detachment. There is no documentation to show the outcome of
that surgery.
The applicant is presently entitled to Reserve retirement awaiting pay at
age 60 beginning in 2009. As of 22 July 2005, he was credited with 35
years of satisfactory Federal military service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the
applicant’s records is warranted. The BCMR Medical Consultant states that
the evidence of record indicates the primary residual from the applicant’s
multiple injuries was limited extension of the left knee resulting in a
gait abnormality that limited his ability to walk long distances. His
medical records show no residuals of his other injuries that would have
been unfitting. The records indicate his pain was satisfactorily
controlled without functional limitations and that there was no evidence of
pain medications producing side effects that would impact performance of
duties. The IPEB concluded the applicant’s impairments would not prevent
him from reasonably fulfilling the purpose of his employment in his office
and grade/rank/rating in his career specialty as a munitions
superintendent. The commander’s letter to the PEB stands in contrast to
the evidence of the medical records; however, it is very likely that this
letter was based on obsolete second hand information and not current
assessments of his medical status.
The applicant points out that the residuals of treatment for a detached
retina occurring while on active duty were not considered by the PEB. The
BCMR Medical Consultant states a treated detached retina itself is not
disqualifying for military service and does not warrant referral for MEB
unless there are residual visual impairments when using both eyes that are
incompatible with service. Even complete eye loss of one eye with good
preserved vision in the other eye may not be unfitting depending on purpose
of employment, office, and grade/rank/rating. There is no evidence
submitted that shows residual visual impairments at the time that warranted
referral into the disability system.
It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that action and disposition in
this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force
directives that implement the law.
The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant contends that from the time of his accident to the time he
was released from active duty on 31 May 2005, the Air Force has never
completed a complete comprehensive physical examination. The only real
physical examination he’s received was done by the Veterans Administration.
He submits a copy of the VA review of their findings with his rebuttal.
A copy of the applicant’s rebuttal, with attachment, 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find that
it supports a determination that the applicant was improperly returned to
duty in 2005. In order for a member to be retired by reason of physical
disability, by law, it must be established that the member is unfit to
perform the duties of his or her office and grade in such a manner as to
reasonably fulfill the purpose of their employment on active duty. Neither
does the record reveal nor has the applicant provided any evidence that
would lead us to believe that he was physically unfit within the meaning of
the governing regulation, which implements the law. In view of the above
and absent persuasive evidence that the applicant was denied rights to
which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate
standards were not applied, we agree with the opinions and recommendation
of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his conclusions as our findings in
the case. Therefore, applicant's request is not favorably considered.
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 issues 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 this application in Executive
Session on 20 September 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-02615
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 Jul 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 06.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Rebuttal, not dated, w/atchs.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2006-002261
AFPC/DPSD recommends the applicant’s case file, medical records, and related documents be reviewed by the AFBCMR to determine what actions should be taken regarding his request. The medical community did, in fact, “drop the ball” as he was released from active duty and transferred to the Reserve Retired List after it was determined that he was unfit for duty and could not perform the job for which he was trained. He had a medical condition that made him unfit for military service and, by...
Based on the above, the Board majority believes the applicant should have been found unfit by reason of physical disability. He was not released from active duty on 15 August 1978, but was permanently retired by reason of physical disability, effective 16 August 1978. He was not released from active duty on 15 August 1978, but was permanently retired by reason of physical disability, effective 16 August 1978.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00429
He should have been rated for the other injuries (neck and back) that he also sustained in the accident since they were also addressed during his active duty military career. On 18 May 99, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found the applicant unfit for further military service due to “status post motor vehicle accident 1994 with residuals, chronic headaches,” and recommended discharge with severance pay with a 10 percent compensable rating. A recommendation by an MEB for...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02155
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states medical records available for review were limited to service medical records dating only from May 2003, during the time he was deployed to Al Dhafra AB, and do not provide sufficient information regarding the entire medical course of his chronic back condition, dating back to a motor vehicle accident in the 1980’s, in order to overcome the presumption of regularity. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-03843
_________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states a review of his service medical records and personnel records finds no documentation or references to the incident he states caused his heart disease. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00145
Discussion: The CI was diagnosed with PTSD and was found unfit for PTSD at 10%. VARD (diagnosed as Tinnitus) 20080516 and rated it at 10% based on exam of 20080107: The condition is noted in your service treatment records as of May 3, 2007; We have assigned a 10 percent evaluation based on examination findings that has determined, your tinnitus is persistent in nature; the diagnosis that has been given is ringing in the left ear. There is no hearing loss present on the right and there is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002375
The applicant states he was discharged for weight control failure under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 18, but he injured his left eye in January 2005. b. Paragraph 3-16e states vision that cannot be corrected with ordinary spectacle lenses to at least 20/40 in one eye and 20/100 in the other eye or 20/30 in one eye and 20/200 in the other eye, or 20/20 in one eye and 20/800 in the other eye are causes for referral to an...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01041
On 6 Jul 72, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council approved the recommendation and directed his discharge with severance pay. His lumbar back pain was unfitting for military service and was properly rated at the time and there is no evidence in his service medical records to support a higher rating at the time of discharge. The complete Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant completed 26 years of active service and retired effective 1 May 1989 in the grade of master sergeant (E-7) due to maximum years of service allowed by policy. The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show disability retirement for degenerative lumbar spine disease, his treated eye condition (lattice degeneration with retinal holes), and pseudofolliculitis barbae. There is no...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01354
The injuries to his right ankle and heel should have been considered just as unfitting for continued military service as the loss of his left leg. While members can currently request to appeal a fit finding; that was not the case at the time he was boarded. Therefore, 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 of injustice.