RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00172 

 

 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her disability discharge, with severance pay (DWSP) be changed 
to a medical retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was discharged with a 10 percent disability rating, with 
severance pay. Upon discharge, she immediately filed and was 
awarded a 100 percent combined rating from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) for fibromyalgia, degenerative disc 
disease, and major depression. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a copy of her 
Social Security Administration (SSA) and DVA disability rating 
decisions. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant, a technical sergeant, served as a Computer 
Systems Operations Craftsman, with a date of rank of 1 Feb 03. 
On 12 Dec 05, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) 
found the applicant’s condition of chronic neck pain, status 
post C5-6 and C6-7 fusion, with normal neurodiagnostic studies, 
seasonal allergic rhinitis, and history of colon polyps 
unfitting and recommended DWSP, with a disability rating of 
10 percent. The applicant’s case was forwarded to the Formal 
PEB (FPEB) and they concurred with IPEB’s findings, with 
additional findings of myofascial pain syndrome (Fibromyalgia-
like) unfitting, and recommended DWSP, with a disability rating 
of 10 percent; on 8 Feb 06, the applicant disagreed with the 
findings of the FPEB. The applicant’s case was forwarded to the 


Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), on 
7 Jun 06, and they directed the applicant be disability 
separated from active service, with a compensable disability 
rating of 10 percent. 

 

On 25 Jul 06, the applicant was medically disability discharged 
under the provisions of AFI 36-3212, with a compensable 
disability rating of 10 percent, with severance pay. She was 
credited with 13 years, 2 months, and 12 days of active duty 
service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. 

 

The applicant entered military service on 14 May 93 and was 
discharged by reason of a disability with entitlement to 
severance pay, on 25 Jul 06. The applicant was treated with 
conservative pain management which was not beneficial and 
underwent surgical fusion of C5, C6, and C7 in Aug 2004. The 
fusion was not successful in relieving the applicant's pain and 
she continued to have conservative pain management treatment. 
The applicant felt she was no longer fit for military duty and 
discussed retirement with her Primary Care Manager (PCM) who 
agreed and recommended a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). Her 
case was subsequently forwarded to SAFPC, who found no 
substantial evidence the applicant's myofascial pain had 
independently cut her military service short. SAFPC did not 
overturn the findings of the IPEB and FPEB. They encouraged the 
applicant to utilize the DVA to address her long term health 
care needs and to adjust the disability rating award should her 
level of impairment change over time. The Board also explained 
the Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES), chartered to 
maintain a fit and vital force can only compensate service 
members for the condition that precluded the performance of 
military service and only to the degree of severity at the time 
of case disposition. 

 

The applicant has appropriately taken advantage of the DVA to 
continue to address her long term health care needs and to have 
her disability rating adjusted as her condition has worsened. 
However, that does not change what her condition was, or its 
level of severity, at the time of separation. In addition, the 
findings of the Social Security Disability system have no 
bearing on the determination of separation from the military. 

 

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 4 Aug 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(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. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case. However, it appears based on the preponderance of the 
evidence, the applicant’s disability rating of 10 percent was 
properly adjudicated and we found no evidence which would lead 
us to believe that her separation was in error or contrary to 
the governing Air Force instructions. The applicant’s case has 
undergone an exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical Consultant 
and we did not find the evidence provided sufficient to overcome 
his assessment of the case. Therefore, we agree with his 
recommendation and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis 
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her 
burden that she has suffered from an error or injustice. In the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-00172 in Executive Session on 23 February 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 28 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 10. 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair