RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02263
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her records be corrected to show she was medically discharged.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was not fully briefed on her options when she was discharged.
In support of her appeal, the applicant submits a personal statement and a
Medical Statement, dated 13 Aug 84, stating she had Sjorgren’s syndrome
while she served on active duty, but was not diagnosed prior to her
discharge.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 Jan 77, and was
progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant. On 21 Nov 79, she was not
recommended for reenlistment and her commander noted in her Selective
Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Status Consideration, that she
had difficulty in stressful situations, lacked leadership capabilities and
was unable to accept the increased responsibilities of an NCO. She was
honorably discharged on 6 May 81, after serving four years and four months
active duty service.
On 23 Jan 85, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) awarded her a
combined compensable disability rating of 10 percent for a meniscus tear
right knee and 10 percent for Sjogren’s syndrome. On 1 Apr 96, the DVA
awarded her a 30 percent disability rating for her condition and on 24 Apr
03, increased that rating to 60 percent.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the record
is warranted. He states in part, that the applicant’s condition did not
appear to be disabling at the time of her discharge. There is no evidence
in her medical records that shows she was unable to perform her duties due
to dry eyes, dry skin, sinusitis or fatigue. The reason for her discharge
was due to being denied reenlistment for duty performance unrelated to her
incipient medical condition.
While the applicant claims that she was not fully briefed on her options
regarding disability retirement, she did not have the option to request a
medical retirement for her condition, even if it was fully diagnosed at the
time of her separation. Even if a Medical Evaluation Board was undertaken,
it would be highly unlikely that her disability rating would have been
higher than the 10 percent rating awarded four years later by the DVA. The
best she would have received would have been a separation with severance
pay. Regardless, the description of her condition at the time of discharge
would not have necessitated a medical discharge.
The preponderance of evidence of the record shows that the applicant’s
Sjogren’s syndrome was appropriately handled and her length of service
discharge was appropriate. Action and disposition in this case are proper
and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that
implement the law.
The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant on 17 October 2007, for review and comments, 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 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 narrative reason for separation should be changed. 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.
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 issue(s) 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 Docket Number BC-2007-02263
in Executive Session on 13 December 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 07.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Oct 07,
w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 07.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00315
The MEB referred her case to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). He opines she likely did have somatoform disorder at the time prior to discharge. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response dated 30 Aug 07, the applicant states there were many physical symptoms she complained about in the military and she went to...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03113
Further, it must be noted that the service disability boards must rate disabilities based on the individual's condition at the time of evaluation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends the requested relief be denied. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial noting that while there may have been sufficient evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01143
Although changing the former member’s Air Force TDRL disability rating will not result in any additional monetary benefits for his heirs, the BCMR Medical Consultant opines that the preponderance of the evidence of the record warrants a higher TDRL disability rating than the 40 percent originally adjudicated and concludes that the evidence of the record most nearly approximates the 60 percent rating but notes that greater weight given to the relative contribution of the mood disorder and...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02313
The CI was started on hydroxychloroquine (specific drug therapy for Sjogren’s syndrome) with some improvement in her symptoms.Notes in the STRproximate to separation indicated the CI’s condition was stable,with no evidence of incapacitating episodes in the previous 12 months.At the MEB examination dated 31 October 2002, 6 months before separation, the CI reported pain in her shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, and knees.The MEB NARSUM cited the DD Form 2808, Report of Medical Examination for...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | bc-2007-01927
Had she known she could have received a TERA retirement based on years of service, she would have taken that instead of appealing the decision of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) regarding her retirement at 30 percent disability. Had she been returned to duty on 21 Aug 94, instead of permanently retired, she still could have requested to retire under TERA not later than 1 Sep 94 under the FY94 Force Reduction Program, a later TERA program, or retire at 20 years TAFMS, her mandatory...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2006-02940
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that a change in the applicant’s records is warranted to reflect a disability rating of 30 percent with a permanent disability retirement. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 27 Jul 07, a copy of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02769
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion no change in the records is warranted. Once the applicant separated from the Regular Air Force and was transferred to the Air Force Reserves, his status changed from being a member of the active Regular Air Force, to being a member of the Reserves, a civilian who could be called to active duty. 10 Section 1201, and his Reserve duty, did in fact, aggravate his...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states that he is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied. We recognize that final disposition of a disability case is based on a “snapshot in time;” however, we believe that her cognitive disorder condition was of such a progressive nature that a true picture of her condition was...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01026
Whereas the Air Force rates a member's disability based on the degree of severity at the time of separation. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied. Whereas the Air Force rates a member's disability based on the degree of severity at the time of separation.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-00545
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...