RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00150
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be changed from a disability discharge with
severance pay to a disability retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Based on his disability rating from the Department of Veteran
Affairs (DVA), he should have been medically retired in 1997.
His medical issue is permanent and was incurred in the line of
duty while serving his country. He planned to spend at least 20
years in the military and was under the impression he should
have been retired because he was a career airman with a
permanent injury that prohibited him from accomplishing his
assigned duties.
He decided to take the separation and not appeal it due to
personal issues.
He experienced verbal harassment from other noncommissioned
officers (NCOs) and not being able to run again or walk long
distances, he was isolated from his fellow airmen. He was
forced to ride in the back of a truck during monthly squadron
runs and hand out water even though he was an NCO.
In support of his request, the applicant provides personal
statements, a copy of his Informal Physical Evaluation Board
(IPEB) findings, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, his DVA rating with
additional DVA correspondence, a statement from his surgeon, and
a message from AFPC/DPPD, dated 2 Jul 97.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Jun 86. On
28 Jan 97, he was placed on a physical profile restricting him
to desk duties. On 15 May 97, he underwent a Medical Evaluation
Board. On 12 Jun 97, the IPEB rated him at a 10 percent
disability rating and recommended discharge with severance pay.
The applicant concurred with the findings on 1 Jul 97 and he was
discharged on 15 Sep 97.
He was reevaluated by the DVA and given a combined 40 percent
disability rating on 18 Mar 98.
Other relevant facts are outlined in the BCMR Medical
Consultants evaluation at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states the preponderance of
evidence reflects no error or injustice occurred during the
disability process.
DPPD further states the Department of Defense and the DVA
operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, U.S.C., Physical
Evaluation Boards (PEB) must determine if a members condition
renders them unfit for continued military service relating to
their office, grade, rank or rating. The fact that a person may
have a medical condition does not mean that the condition is
unfitting for continued for military service. To be unfitting,
the condition must be such that it alone precludes the member
from fulfilling their military duties. If the board renders a
finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate compensation due
to the premature termination of their career. 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. It is the
charge of the DVA to pick up where the Air Force must, by law,
leave off. Under Title 38, the DVA may rate any service-
connected condition based upon future employability or
reevaluate based on changes in the severity of a condition.
This often results in different ratings by the two agencies.
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. It was an injustice for his Osteochrondritis
Dissecans condition, post operative, to not be considered by the
IPEB. He understands and concurs that his back injury was not
part of the IPEB and is not warranted for consideration.
His 20 percent DVA rating combined with his 10 percent Air Force
rating would provide him with a 30 percent rating needed for a
medical retirement.
He has lost the ability to run, jump, climb, walk for an
extended period, and perform everyday as a normal person because
of his injury and subsequent surgeries. He walks with an
extreme limp due to failed operations and his future prognosis
is an artificial joint. The only reason he did not have it when
he was in the military was due to his age. He has been told he
has to suffer the pain and wait until age 50 because of the
service life of artificial joints.
His quality of life has suffered and he did not fully understand
the disservice and injustice brought on him by the decision of
the IPEB.
The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at
Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL EVALUATION - BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical
Consultant states the preponderance of evidence reflects no
error or injustice occurred during the USAF disability review
and rating process.
The BCMR Medical Consultant noted the DVA chose to award
separate disability ratings for Degenerative Arthritis and
Osteochrondritis Dissecans. The Consultant opines, from a
functional standpoint, use of a singular unifying code to depict
the applicants functional impairment is more appropriate; to do
otherwise risks pyramiding disability rating awards. The
Medical Consultant believes that this would have been made clear
had the entry on the applicants AF Form 356, Findings and
Recommendations of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, been written
as it appeared on the applicants AF Form 618, Medical Board
Report, which reads: Chronic left knee pain due to
Osteochrondritis Dissecans.
The complete BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit
F.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANTS REVIEW OF BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANTS EVALUATION:
A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit
G). As of this date, this office has not received a response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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 issues 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-
2009-00150 in Executive Session on 30 September 2009, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered for Docket
Number BC-2009-00150:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 23 Feb 09.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Apr 09.
Exhibit E. Applicants Rebuttal, 14 Apr 09.
Exhibit F. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
Dated 19 Jun 09.
Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jul 09.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-01580
He was not fully counseled on the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and PEB processes. In a letter dated 12 Oct 06, his commander recommended he be separated from service based upon the applicant’s communication difficulties. While the DVA may separately rate any and all medical conditions the applicant has, the military can only evaluate and rate those conditions which render a service member unfit to perform duty at the time of the determination.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-03140
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. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03095
On 6 March 2000, the applicant submitted her rebuttal letter to SAFPC requesting a disability retirement, with a compensable disability rating of 40 percent. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant summarized the information contained in the applicant’s personnel and medical records and is of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence of the record supports a disability rating of 20 percent. A complete...
Records received to date do not show that applicant has sought disability through the 2 .c 97-01000 DVA, whose records show no evaluation having been done up to 3 May 1996. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLT CANT ' S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that he sent copies of his medical records with requests for another opinion and interpretation of his condition to the Chief Orthopedic Surgeon and his...
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-00552
Both Boards recommended permanent retirement with a disability rating of 40 percent. DPPD therefore recommends his record be corrected to show he was retired by reason of physical disability for fibromyalgia with a permanent disability rating of 60 percent. AFPC/DPPD’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel for the applicant states while the BCMR Medical Consultant’s advisory...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states that evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation indicate the applicant was fit and medically qualified for continued military service or appropriate separation and did not have any physical or mental' condition which would have warranted consideration under the provisions of AFI 36-3212. This, obviously, did not apply to the applicant, as he had been found fit to return to...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant developed a bipolar disorder during the course of her active duty service, a condition which had not 2 AFBCMR 97- 01142 J been diagnosed prior to her service (as suggested by the IPEB) nor which was aggravated by "willful noncompliance" as the FPEB found. The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant should receive relief from the disability evaluation system and have...
Applicant was honorably discharged on 24 April 1996 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Personality Disorder) in the grade of airman. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Council, states that The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, Medical Advisor SAF applicant s last Personnel hospitalization at Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) between February and March 1996, did not affirm the previous diagnoses of dissociative amnesia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and panic disorder and he was found only to have a...
18, itseparation from the Military Service by Reason of Physical Disabilityii, one overcomes this presumption (1) only when the member, because of their disability, was physically unable to perform adequately the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating or that (2) acute, grave illness or injury or other deterioration of the member's physical condition occurs immediately prior to or coincident with their processing for a non-disability retirement Or separation. The applicant's complete...