RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01948 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His compensable disability rating of “70” percent be increased 
to “100” percent. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In accordance with the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities (VASRD), the disability rating for a platelet count 
of less than 20,000 requiring treatment with medication is 
100 percent. On 31 Dec 07, his platelet count was 17,000 and he 
was started on 60 milligrams of Prednisone per day. His 
disability rating should have been based on his initial 17,000 
platelet count and not what they were after being on the 
Prednisone. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides extracts from 
his service medical records, a copy of his retirement order and 
other supporting documents. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Prior to the events under review, the applicant had completed 
over 11 years of active service. 

 

The applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and was 
diagnosed with Idiopathic Thrombocytopenia Purpura (ITP), 
Asymptomatic, and Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD), and was 
subsequently returned to duty. In 2008, another MEB was 
conducted and his case was referred to an Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB). The IPEB recommended permanent 
retirement, with a rating of 60 percent for the ITP and 
30 percent for the PKD, for a combined rating of 70 percent. 
The applicant did not concur with the findings of the IPEB and 
requested his case be reviewed by the Formal PEB (FPEB). The 


FPEB recommended a compensable disability rating of 70 for the 
ITP. However, they did not find the PKD unfitting, compensable 
or ratable. The applicant concurred with the FPEB findings and 
the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council recommended he 
be permanently retired with a compensable rating of 70 percent. 

 

The applicant was relieved from active duty and medically 
disability retired, on 29 Aug 08, under the provisions of AFI 
36-3212, with a compensable disability rating of 70 percent. He 
was credited with 25 years, 6 months, and 16 days of active 
service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. They note the Department of 
Defense (DoD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
disability evaluation system operates under two separate laws. 
PEBs must determine if a member’s 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 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 the USAF 
disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member’s 
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 AF must, by law leave off. Under a separate 
title, 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/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. Under the ITP 
rating criteria for 100 percent an individual must indeed have a 
platelet count below 20,000. However, in order to earn the 
100 percent disability rating the condition must also be 
manifested through bleeding requiring a blood transfusion. The 
BCMR Medical Consultant found no evidence that the applicant 
ever experienced spontaneous bleeding or that he ever required a 
blood transfusion. Based upon these facts alone, the BCMR 
Medical Consultant opines that the applicant has not met the 
burden of proof to justify the requested change of the record. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant notes the applicant’s frequent 
fluctuations in platelet count and concedes that placement on 
the TDRL might have been justified, noting the frequent 
fluctuations suggests his condition was not stabilized. 


However, the applicant’s dependable and consistent responses to 
treatment with Prednisone over a 2 or more year period, a 
pattern of platelet count and treatment was well established to 
the extent that warranted a final disposition in the case. 

 

With reference to the applicant’s PKD, he reminds the applicant 
that the Military Disability Evaluation System, operating under 
Title 10, United States Code (USC), can by law only offer 
compensation for the illness or injury that is the cause for 
career termination; and then only to the degree of impairment 
present at the time of final disposition. There is no evidence 
that the PKD diagnosis interfered with the applicant’s ability 
to perform military service and did not contribute to cutting 
short his military career. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation, with 
attachment, is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 16 February 2011 for review and comment within 
30 days. The applicant’s case was considered by the Board on 
15 March 2011, but held in abeyance pending his response to the 
evaluation. However, as of this date, no response has been 
received by this office (Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case. The applicant requests his disability rating be 
increased to 100 percent to correspond with the rating he 
received from the DVA. However, based on a preponderance of the 
evidence the applicant’s disability rating of 70 percent was 
properly adjudicated and we find no evidence which would lead us 
to believe that his disability rating was in error or contrary 
to the governing Air Force instructions. The applicant’s case 
has undergone an exhaustive review by the office of primary 
responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and we did not 
find the evidence provided sufficient to overcome their 
assessment of the case. Therefore, we agree with the 
recommendations and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis 
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his 


burden that he 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2010-01948 in Executive Session on 15 March 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 May 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 17 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 14 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Feb 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair