RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01193
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 19 SEPTEMBER 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show that he was medically discharged and/or
retired from military service.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In his statement to the Department of Veteran's Affairs (DVA), he declares,
among other things, only the Air Force can give him a disability retirement
pension. He would have been on temporary disability five years and then
retired.
In an addendum dated 21 Sep 07, the applicant references several laws to
show the Air Force should have placed him on the Temporary Disability
Retired List. He also states the Air Force should have provided him with
vocational rehabilitation.
In support of the application, the applicant submits his statement to the
DVA, his DVA rating, and an addendum.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 6 Dec 57, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Regular Air
Force in the grade of airman second class for convenience of the
Government. He served three years, seven months and three days on active
duty. He then transferred into the Air Force Reserves.
Section 17, Clinical Evaluation, on the applicant's Report of Medical
Examination for discharge indicates "normal" for all items listed.
On 16 Oct 06, the applicant was awarded 60 percent service connected
compensation benefit for Erythema Multiforme from the DVA.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant opines no change in the records is warranted.
The BCMR Medical Consultant states there are no service medical records to
demonstrate that the applicant's condition existed prior to his discharge
from the service, although the evidence of the record indicates he first
sought help for this condition approximately six weeks after discharge. He
notes even if the applicant had developed an incipient rash while still on
active duty, it is clear that he was not permanently disabled by the rash,
nor did his condition cause him to leave the service. He states the reason
the applicant could be considered fit for duty despite the presence of a
medical problem and later be granted a service-connected disability by the
DVA lies in understanding the differences between Title 10, U.S.C., and
Title 38, U.S.C. Title 10, U.S. C., Chapter 61 is the federal statute that
charges the Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and vital force.
The mere presence of a medical condition does not qualify a member for
disability evaluation. For an individual to be considered unfit for
military service there must be a medical condition so severe that it
prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank and experience.
Title 38, takes into account the fact that a person can acquire physical
conditions that, although not unfitting at the time of separation, may
later progress in severity and alter the individual's lifestyle and future
employability. Title 38 was written to allow awarding DVA compensation
ratings for conditions that were not unfitting for military service at the
time of separation. This is the reason why an individual can be fit for
service and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the
DVA for service-connected, but militarily non-unfitting conditions. In
addition, Title 38 authorizes the VA to increase or decrease VA
compensation ratings based upon the individual's condition at the time of
future evaluations. Thus the two systems represent a continuum of medical
care and disability compensation that starts with entry on to active duty
and extends for the life of the veteran. By law, payment of VA
compensation and military disability pay is prohibited. The presence of
medical conditions that were not unfitting while in service, and were not
the cause of separation or retirement, that later progressed in a severity
caused disability resulting in service connected DVA compensation is not a
basis to grant retroactively military disability discharge or disability
compensation.
The BCMR Medical Consultant notes the record shows that the applicant's
skin condition did not significantly or permanently affect his ability to
perform his duties and thus no disability action would be appropriate. He
opines action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.
The complete BCMR 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 24 Sep
07 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant’s contention that he should
have been medically discharged is noted; however, in our opinion, the
detailed comments provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant adequately
address these allegations. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with
the comments and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt
his rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not been
the victim of either an error or injustice; therefore, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 BC-2007-01193 in
Executive Session on 1 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 07, w/atchs; addendum
dated 21 Sep 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 14 Sep 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Sep 07.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01954
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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-01313
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant opines no change in the records is warranted. The BCMR Medical Consultant concludes evidence of the record shows that the back injury was not the cause for separation, did not render the applicant unfit for continued military service and did not warrant evaluation in the disability evaluation system. ___________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03077
Although service connection has been established by the DVA and the applicant has reportedly been awarded a disability rating of 100 percent, there is no compelling evidence the applicant’s arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevented him from reasonably performing the duties of his office, grade, rank and rating during the period of his military service and at the time of his retirement. Nonetheless, acknowledgment of the radiographic evidence of the ASCVD prior to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01017
In August 1981 the applicant reported right arm pain, with no history of trauma, and was diagnosed with musculoskeletal pain and was treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). On 22 March 1992, the applicant’s exam was recorded as normal and he was re-profiled U1. The presence of medical conditions that were not unfitting while in service, and were not the cause of separation or retirement, that later result in service connected DVA compensation is not a basis...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02827
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-01771
The remaining relevant medical facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's medical records, are contained in the letter prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. Furthermore, advises the BCMR Medical Consultant, there is nothing to support the argument that the applicant’s depression was permanently aggravated by military...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02870
On 20 Mar 73, the Air Force PEB determined he was fit for duty, his condition existed prior to service without service aggravation, and recommended that he be removed from the TDRL. 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 grant military disability...
If it had he would not have separated from the Air Force. DPPRR states that on page 30 of the applicant’s original package, it is clearly documented that in October 1990, the applicant was diagnosed with Sarcoidosis and in April 1994 with Hepatitis C. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s letter dated 13 August 2001 further states that the member was aware of his medical condition at the time of separation. The applicant’s medical records clearly show that he was diagnosed with “Hepatitis C” in...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00712
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request. Upon review of the service medical records, it does not appear that the applicant’s abdominal condition or hearing loss was unfitting at the time of discharge. The preponderance of evidence of record shows that the applicant’s abdominal and hearing condition did not require a disability evaluation and a medical discharge would be...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00849
The MEB recommended the applicant be referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). Medical conditions developing after separation that are granted service connection under presumptions of Title 38 are also not a basis to retroactively grant military disability ratings or compensation. Review of service medicals finds no evidence the applicant had diabetes while in service and no evidence that diabetes was causing symptoms diagnosed as conversion reaction.