RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00678
            INDEX NUMBER:  145.00
            COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 AUG 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect  a  disability  rating  higher  than  20
percent.


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The low disability rating eliminated him  from  receiving  military  medical
benefits and all evidence was not considered during  the  disability  rating
process.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement and  a
copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from  Active
Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  on  11  May  1972,  for  a
period of 4 years.  He transitioned to the Reserves and was assigned  as  an
aircraft hydraulics systems specialist and  was  progressively  promoted  to
the grade of technical sergeant.  On 4 July 2002, while on  extended  active
duty he presented to the emergency department with hesitant speech  and  was
found by brain MRI to have evidence of a  stroke.   On  8  October  2002,  a
Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  was  completed.   The  Informal  Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB) and Formal Physical Evaluation  Board  (FPEB)  found
him unfit and recommended a disability rating of  10 percent  and  discharge
with severance pay.  He appealed the decision to the Secretary  of  the  Air
Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) and submitted  a  civilian  neuropsychiatric
assessment that was completed in March 2003.  On 28 April  2003,  the  SAFPC
directed he be placed on the Temporary Retirement Disability List (TDRL)  at
40 percent compensable.  He was demobilized on 11 June  2003,  and  remained
employed full-time in his civilian capacity as an  aircraft  mechanic.   The
Department of Veterans Affairs rated him 10 percent disabling  on  4 January
2005. In 2005, he underwent TDRL re-evaluation.  The  IPEB  and  FPEB  rated
him  10  percent  for  cognitive  impairment  and  10 percent  for  residual
dysarthria,  resulting   in   a   20 percent   disability   rating   and   a
recommendation for disability discharge with severance pay.  He appealed  to
the SAFPC, which on 14 September 2005, directed he be removed from TDRL  and
discharged with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating.   He  was
discharged on 11 October 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial and states no  change  in  the
record is warranted.  He further states  in  part,  the  applicant  seeks  a
higher  disability  rating  and  military  retirement  for  residuals  of  a
cerebrovascular accident that occurred while he was  mobilized  on  extended
active duty.  There is no indication that the cerebrobascular  accident  was
directly related causally  to  his  military  activities  (embolism  due  to
ventricular  dilatation  resulting  from  a  myocardial  infarct  in  1997),
however it occurred while on extended active duty  and  in  accordance  with
policy and practice the acute event was considered  in  the  line  of  duty.
Subsequent to his cerebrovascular accident, he reported  speech  and  memory
difficulties; however, he continued to  be  well  rated  by  his  supervisor
(based  on  a  contemporaneous  enlisted  performance  report)  and  by  his
commander (based  on  her  support  for  retention  preparatory  to  Medical
Evaluation Board).  He remained  employed  at  a  highly  technical  job  in
aircraft maintenance.   A  civilian  neuropsychiatric  evaluation  of  March
2003,  documented  cognitive  impairment.   A  contemporaneous   Air   Force
neuropsychological examination was comparable, and  a  definite  rating  for
impairment of social and  industrial  adaptability  was  rendered.   He  was
placed on TDRL for two years, during which time he continued his work as  an
aircraft mechanic.  On TDRL re-evaluation two years later he was  judged  to
warrant “mild” impairment of social and  industrial  adaptability  based  on
job performance and demonstrated functional capacity.  The  IPEB,  FPEB  and
SAFPC all supported  a  total  disability  rating  of  20  percent.   On  14
September 2003, the SAFPC recommended the applicant’s removal from TDRL  and
discharge  with  severance  pay.   In  view  of  the  applicant’s  continued
employment and favorable performance at  his  pre-CVA  job  and  the  “mild”
social and industrial adaptability impairment rating,  the  VASRD  standards
were correctly applied, and  are  consistent  with  the  2005  findings  and
recommendations of the SAFPC.  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 EVALUATIONS:

The applicant pleads with the Board to  reconsider  the  low  rating  of  10
percent for the cognitive disorder or a minimum  overall  disability  rating
of 30 percent.

The applicant’s complete response 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 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  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the
applicant’s disability rating should be changed.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
we  agree  with  the  opinions  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 this application  in Executive
Session on 24 May 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. B. J. Olson-White, Panel Chair
            Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
            Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2006-00678:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Oct 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Mar 07.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 07.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Apr 07.




               B. J. OLSON-WHITE
               Panel Chair