RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02071
INDEX CODE: 137.04
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be returned to active duty in order to undergo a Medical Evaluation
Board (MEB).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should never have been released from active duty until all avenues
of his health-related issues had been resolved. Prior to his
Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) on 31 May 2007 at age 60 he was:
1. Denied military hold as per Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3203.
2. Denied a medical review board while there were inconclusive results
of medical tests.
3. Denied final medical disposition.
4. Misdiagnosed by the flight surgeon.
5. Refused required medical testing (by the flight surgeon) required
to determine his correct diagnosis prior to his MSD.
As he was preparing to retire, he began to get medical checkups. He
had experienced many problems with his left knee during March and
April 2007 and during that time frame had visited an emergency room
because of intense pain. The knee pain was diagnosed as bursitis and
he was prescribed Naproxen for the pain. In late May 2007, at the end
of his last flight prior to his retirement, he was exiting the
aircraft and felt something snap in his left knee causing him great
pain as a result. He was denied medical hold and scheduled for a
Computer Axial Tomography (CAT) scan in June 2007, after his
retirement. His request for a Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scan
and a re-review of an earlier CAT scan were also denied. He was told
by base medical officials that he did not have cancer, that he was
milking the system, and that he was paranoid.
He has since been diagnosed with Diffuse Large B-Cell Non-Hodgkin’s
Lymphoma of the bone (left knee). He has undergone chemotherapy
treatment from January 2008 to May 2008 and underwent radiation
therapy in June 2008 to eradicate the cancer in his knee. It is his
contention that had his initial CAT scan been re-read and/or he had
been allowed to undergo a PET scan his cancer would have been found
prior to his retirement.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement
and pertinent parts of his medical records.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant began his military career on 30 June 1965. He was
progressively promoted to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSGT)
effective and with a date of rank of 3 February 2005. He served over
39 years for pay and was released from active duty with the New York
Air National Guard (NYANG) on 31 May 2007 and retired for length of
service effective 1 June 2007.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ NGB/A1PS received this case on 4 Jun 08 for an advisory opinion and
has failed to provide one.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded
that his uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
establish he has been the victim of either an error or an injustice.
We noted his service medical record was not included as part of his
application and the few copies of his medical record he did include
are not considered adequate evidence in this case. Consequently,
should the applicant forward his SMR and/or copies of civilian medical
records or other evidence to support his case, we would entertain
reconsideration of his application. Therefore, in the absence of
persuasive 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2008-02071 in Executive Session on 15 September 2009, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit: DD Form 149, dated 28 May 09, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00224
No other medical records are available for review between the time of his separation exam and his 7 Nov 02 hospitalization. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant indicates the applicant was diagnosed with his cancer one week after discharge. Although complete service medical records are not available for review, the Consultant believes the applicant would have been placed on medical hold and retained on active...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01771
There was pain during evaluation of ROM and stress of the meniscus. The post separation MRI did not report any abnormality of the PCL and orthopedic examination and arthroscopy did not show any abnormality of the PCL.The Board noted the VA C&P examination report of moderate laxity of the medial collateral ligament upon which the VA based its 20% rating under VASRD code 5257. All Board members agreed that the examinations summarized above reported sufficient evidence of painful motion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03755
The Air Force Medical Service position, as stated in a letter dated 25 Jun 03, was that testing was not considered disqualifying in and of itself. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant notes that AFI 48-123 disqualifies flyers from flying duty with a personal or family history of Huntington’s Chorea and that a waiver may...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02471
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denying the applicant’s request to change his separation. Had the Air Force known of this condition at the time of his enlistment, the applicant would not have been allowed entry into the military. The applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02527
The Medical Consultant opines that if the applicant elected not to have any injury recorded on his record, it would be unlikely that this previously non-reported injury would be sufficient to cause medical problems forty years later. The evidence of record does indicate that he did have several episodes of back problems that resolved quickly while on active duty. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012109
The applicant states that the DVA rated the FSM's cancer as service-connected and granted him death benefits "because the veteran died of a condition that was military service related" (exhibit F). Bilateral pleural based masses were present, greater on the right. There is no evidence of any multiple myeloma cancer cells during the process of the FSM's retirement physical examination or his prior medical evaluation for back pain.
The MRI done on her lower back showed herniation of discs on L2 and L3. Evidence of record establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was medically qualified for continued active duty, that the reason for her separation was proper, and that no error or injustice occurred in this case. The applicant was not referred to or considered by the Air Force Disability Evaluation System and evidence of record indicates that she was medically qualified for continued active service at...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01286
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01286 INDEX CODE: 121.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be compensated for 43 days of accrued leave he lost at the end of Fiscal Year 1999 (FY99) and for four additional days of active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005114
The formal PEB's findings and recommendations were identical to the applicant's informal PEB reconsideration, dated 18 August 2006, with the exception that his disability rating for voiding dysfunction rose from 40 percent to 60 percent, and the applicant's combined rating rose from 70 percent to 80 percent. As a result, the ABCMR can only make a determination regarding the applicant's formal PEB combined rating and whether he should have been retired from the Army with a 100 percent...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03528
Addressing the applicants fitness to serve, the AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, is a key tool utilized by Air Force providers to indicate whether a service member is under care for a medical condition affecting duty, mobility or requires a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He disputes the facts in the BCMR Medical Consultants advisory. He knows three...