RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01084
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His leg injury sustained on active duty be changed from non-
service connected to service connected.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was mistreated for his injury.
Applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 8 January 2008, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air
Force in the grade of airman basic.
The record reflects the applicant suffered a fracture of the left
ankle as a result of falling down stairs. He was treated with
casting followed by a short-leg walking brace. The radiographic
evaluation of his injury demonstrated osteochondral defects and
possible ostenonecrosis of the talar dome.
On 10 July 2008, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force
under the provision of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of
Airmen, for Unsatisfactory Entry-Level Performance or Conduct for
Minor Disciplinary Infractions. He completed 6 months and 3 days
of active service.
On 28 April 2009, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)
awarded the applicant a 10 percent disability rating for his
service connected ankle fracture.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial of the applicant's
request and states the issue of establishing service connection
is solely a matter of concern by the DVA and determines whether a
veteran will be eligible for disability compensation for a given
injury or illness. The applicant was given service connection for
his ankle injury. Although the applicant sustained an injury
during military service, it does not automatically warrant a
medical basis for separation. The applicant would have undergone
dual-action review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel
Council (SAPFC) during which his administrative discharge and
medical separation would be simultaneously considered. In view of
the fact the applicant received an uncharacterized entry level
separation near the 180-day point, the BCMR Medical Consultant
opines that he would have been administratively discharged, even
if he had been processed through the Military Disability
Evaluation System and found unfit. The BCMR Medical Consultant
bases his opinion upon the lack of any causal or mitigating
relationship between the applicant's injury or a mental
impairment and his minor disciplinary infractions. In addition,
there is no evidence to validate his contention that he was
mistreated for his injury. The DVA, operating under Title 38
United States Code, is authorized to offer compensation for any
medical condition determined to be service connected, without
regard to its impact upon a service member's retainability, or
the basis for separation. The applicant's medical conditions have
already been determined service-connected, but were not the cause
for career termination. Thus, the Medical Consultant opines the
applicant has not met his burden of proof of the existence of an
error or injustice that warrants a change in the narrative reason
for separation or in the service characterization (although not a
listed contention on his DD Form 149).
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 7 August 2009 for review and response within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an injustice. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the
merits of the case. However, we did not find it sufficient to
override the rationale provided by the BCMR Medical Consultant.
Therefore, we are in agreement with the comments and
recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his
rationale as the basis for our decision the applicant has not
been the victim of either an error or injustice. In view of the
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 Docket
Number BC-2009-01084 in Executive Session on 1 December 2009,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 May 09.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Aug 09.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Aug 09.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01084
The applicant was given service connection for his ankle injury. 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 7 August 2009 for review and response within 30 days. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Aug 09.
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 00978
The BCMR Medical Consultant's complete 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 31 Jul 09 for review and comment within 30 days. We note the applicant currently has a combined DVA disability rating of 60 percent. Title 38, allows the DVA to provide compensation for servicemembers who incur a service-connected medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00978
The BCMR Medical Consultant's complete 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 31 Jul 09 for review and comment within 30 days. We note the applicant currently has a combined DVA disability rating of 60 percent. Title 38, allows the DVA to provide compensation for servicemembers who incur a service-connected medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03293
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03293 INDEX CODE: 108.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 NOV 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears the applicant is requesting his honorable discharge be changed to a medical retirement and that he be eligible for Combat- Related Special Compensation (CRSC). Review...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02042
In a letter dated 19 Jun 13, the applicant requested that her case be administratively closed to allow for more time to gather information in response to the Air Force evaluations. The Medical Consultant notes that two separate Air Force policies, AFI 36-3208 and AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and Separation, may be at crossroads; one which justifies an ELS for the medical condition, pes planus (flat feet), which was likely to have Existed Prior to Service...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02016
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his discharge, he was unable to perform his assigned military duties as an armament systems specialist. There is no evidence in the medical record that indicates that applicant was not fit for continued duty at the time of his separation. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00150
Further, it must be noted that Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the members condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. The complete AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was awarded a 10 percent disability rating from the IPEB for knee pain only. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 00966 2
The Medical Consultant states that in the case under review, despite the applicants pain episodes and his current contentions, the record indicates that he had an approved retirement date of 1 August 2009, which was revoked in order for him to receive surgical treatment and, that his medical condition had improved significantly after surgery. As indicated by the evidence of record, the applicant was found fit, with restrictions, subsequent to his surgery; and, returned to duty so he could...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02132
He never stated that he had injured his ankle because he never had and was unaware that his records reflected that he had injured his ankle six years prior to entering the Air Force until he requested a copy of his records. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial, stating, in part, the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at time of separation. ...