RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01148 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

She be given a medical retirement in lieu of her disability 
discharge with severance pay. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her medical history indicates she suffered from Nissen 
fundoplication w/hiatal hernia repair, hearing loss in left ear, 
benign paroxysmal vertigo, ovarian cyst removal, left arm loss 
of function, chest pain, and lumbar pain with chronic tingling 
which reportedly radiates to her left leg. 

 

Presently, she is unable to sustain life as she has done prior 
to her. She is unable to eat more than three tablespoons of 
food without getting sick. She has missed a lot of work due to 
medical appointments in an attempt to figure out the cause of 
her sickness. She was admitted twice to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) hospital for chest pains since her 
discharge and once while on active duty. She was unaware she 
could present her records before a medical evaluation board 
(MEB). She asked her medical provider if she needed to appear 
before a MEB; however, she was told that DVA would handle her 
medical case. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides extract copies 
from her medical records and record of proceedings from the 
Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR). 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 January 
1997 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff 
sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of 
rank of 1 September 2003. 

 


 

On 29 August 2007, an AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial 
Report, was issued and placed the applicant on a medical profile 
for seven months due to neck and arm pain. However, a hand-
written entry by her evaluating physician showed the applicant 
had been on a “4T” profile (4 representing severely compromised 
function or restrictions imposed. Sustained duty restrictions of 
level "4" in any category for 12 or more months should trigger 
an MEB profile) since 9 June 2006. 

 

On 19 October 2007, the applicant’s commander prepared a letter 
to the MEB explaining the mission impact her medical condition 
had on her ability to perform duty; as well as the impact upon 
worldwide qualifications. The commander recommended the 
applicant be returned to duty or otherwise medically retired. 

 

On 20 December 2007, the applicant underwent a MEB and was 
referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). 

 

On 11 March 2008, the IPEB recommended a disability discharge 
with severance pay and a disability rating of 20 percent for 
neck pain, status post C-5,6 anterior cervical diskectomy and 
fusion. The applicant disagreed with the findings and requested 
a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) hearing of her case. 

 

On 15 May 2008, the applicant signed a waiver of her right to a 
formal hearing in front of the FPEB. The FPEB president 
approved her waiver request. 

 

On 28 May 2008, the Secretary of the Air Force directed her 
disability discharge with severance pay. On 25 July 2008, she 
was honorably discharged for physical disability and assigned an 
RE code of 2Q (medically retired or discharged). She was 
credited with 11 years, 6 months, and 18 days of total active 
service. 

 

On 2 February 2010, the PDBR recommended denial and concurred 
with the recommendations of the PEB of 20 percent for neck pain, 
status post C-5,6 anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. 
However, the PDBR concluded none of the other conditions was 
unfitting. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant, 
which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant states the applicant has not met the burden of proof 
of an error or injustice that justifies the desired change of 
the record. The Department of Defense Instruction 1332.38, 
paragraphs E3.P3.3.3 and E3.P3.3.4, state if the evidence 


establishes that the service member adequately performed his or 
her duties until the time the Service member was referred for 
physical evaluation, the member may be considered fit for duty 
even though medical evidence indicates questionable physical 
ability to continue to perform duty. The “Cause and Effect 
Relationship” states regardless of the presence of illness or 
injury, inadequate performance of duty, by itself, shall not be 
considered as evidence of unfitness due to physical disability 
unless it is established that there is a cause and effect 
relationship between the two factors. The Medical Consultant 
acknowledges that the applicant has received disability 
compensation issued by the DVA for a significant number of 
additional service-incurred medical conditions. However, not 
only did the applicant's commander attest to her ability to 
perform all of her duties, no cause and effect relationship is 
established between the presence of these conditions and 
inadequate duty performance. 

 

The Military Disability Evaluation System (DES), by law, only 
offers compensation for an illness or injury when it is the 
cause for career termination. A preponderance of evidence shows 
the applicant's cervical disc disease and associated left upper 
extremity symptoms were the cause for terminating her career. 
While operating under a different set of laws, Title 38 United 
States Code (U.S.C.), the DVA is authorized to offer 
compensation for any medical condition deemed service-incurred 
or aggravated, without regard to its impact upon a service 
member's retainability or fitness to serve. Thus, the mere fact 
that the DVA rendered disability compensation is not a proof 
that the Military Department has failed by not issuing like 
disability determinations. Title 38, takes into account the fact 
that a person may acquire a condition that, although not 
unfitting at the time of separation, may later progress in 
severity and alter the individual's lifestyle and future 
employability. In addition, Title 38 authorizes the DVA to 
conduct periodic re-evaluations for adjusting the disability 
rating awards (increase, decrease, or with no change) should the 
level of impairment vary over time. The two systems represent a 
continuum of medical care and disability compensation that 
starts with entry onto active duty and extends for the life of 
the veteran. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 
26 October 2010 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 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 the reason for her 
disability discharge should be changed. The applicant’s 
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find her 
arguments sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale 
provided by the BCMR Medical Consultant. Therefore, we agree 
with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical 
Consultant and adopt the rationale expressed, 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 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-2010-01148 in Executive Session on 5 January 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

Panel Chair 

Member 

Member 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01148 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 Oct 
10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Oct 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair