RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02998 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He would like his medical discharge with severance pay changed 
to a “Medical Retirement”. 

 

2. He would like his disability rating increased. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

While in training at the Air Force Academy, he jumped over a four 
foot wall and landed on a compacted incline ditch. The hard 
surface impact caused a compound fracture of his right tibia and 
fibula in six different places. After his injury, the obstacle 
course was shutdown to eliminate any other injuries. He went 
through surgery; however, he did not have a place to undergo 
physical therapy (PT). He was told he would have to perform his 
own PT. He did everything possible to speed up his recovery; 
however, he never recovered. Over the years, he sought help to 
fix his leg, but did not receive any. 

 

After returning from his deployment in Aug 06, he confided in his 
flight surgeon to find some relief for his medical issue. 
Thereafter, he underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The 
MEB determined he needed to be released from active duty. He was 
given erroneous information regarding his options if he disagreed 
with the MEB findings. When briefed by the Physical Evaluation 
Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO), he was told that if he were to 
disagree with the board’s findings and elected to go before the 
Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB), he would have to pay his 
own travel expenses and attorney fees; it was unlikely the board 
would change its decision and might possibly downgrade his 
disability rating. 

 

He was denied rights available to him as a member of the 
military. He has since been given prescription medications that 
he must take every day to help alleviate the pain and depression 
caused by all the nerve damage and scar tissue. Because he takes 
medicine, he is not allowed to renew his private pilot’s license. 

 

 


In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, a copy of an affidavit from his spouse, a copy of 
photos of his injury, excerpts from his medical records, and 
letters of support. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served in the Regular Air Force and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of major (0-4), having 
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jan 07. 

 

The applicant met an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) on 
8 Jun 07. He was recommended for discharge with a 20 percent 
compensable disability rating for Low-Grade Reflex Sympathetic 
Dystrophy, Right Lower Extremity. On 25 Jun 07, the applicant 
agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the PEB 
and waived his right to a Formal PEB. He was discharged with 
severance pay on 4 Aug 07 after serving 10 years, 2 months, and 7 
days on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. An Informal Physical Evaluation 
Board reviewed the applicant’s case on 8 June 2007 and 
recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating 
of 20%. The applicant concurred with the board findings and his 
discharge date was established as 4 August 2007. In an 
examination that occurred on 11 Oct 06, the physician noted that 
the applicant had continued pain in the ankle and knees, and that 
there was reactive arthritis in both areas. On 9 Nov 06, another 
physician noted the applicant had no instability of the knee and 
no joint line tenderness, but the range of motion was 0 to 125 
degrees (slightly decreased from normal). In another examination 
accomplished on 4 Apr 07, it was revealed the applicant had 
normal strength, sensation, and range of motion of the right 
lower extremity (RLE) – which supported the assessment of 
moderate incomplete paralysis by the IPEB. In accordancw with 
the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), 
this resulted in a 20 percent disability rating. It would have 
been reasonable for the applicant to appeal to the FPEB for 
consideration of a higher disability rating. However, in this 
case, the preponderance of evidence reflects no error or 
injustice that occurred during the disability process. 

 

The DPSD complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, noting the 
applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or 


injustice warranting a change to his records. The Medical 
Consultant states that when the involvement is wholly sensory, 
the rating should be “mild”, or at most the “moderate” degree. 
It should be noted that the moderate impairment correlates with a 
20 percent disability rating. As suggested by AFPC/DPSD, the 
Medical Consultant considered alternatively rating the 
applicant’s medical condition under VASRD code 5262; however, 
given the probative value of the 20 percent disability rating 
twice assigned by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) under 
this code, insufficient evidence is supplied to show the rating 
is in error or should have been greater. 

 

Although the applicant received a 30 percent disability rating 
for his mood disorder, there is no evidence of this being present 
while he was serving in the military. The Medical Consultant 
acknowledges that the military department, operating under Title 
10, only offers compensation for the medical condition(s) that 
caused career termination. On the other hand, the DVA is 
authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition 
determined service incurred or aggravated, without regard to its 
impact upon a service member’s fitness to serve or narrative 
reason for release from military service. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation, with 
attachment, is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In a seven-page brief, the applicant reiterates his original 
contentions and provides the following: 

 

 a. He states the PEBLO withheld critical information from 
him and his spouse regarding his options during the MEB process. 
Additionally, he submitted with his appeal package, the incorrect 
information that was given to him by a malicious act of deceit, 
or a lack of knowledge regarding the regulations and procedures. 

 

 b. The PEB neglected to add the appropriate conditions and 
VASRD codes on the AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended 
Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, related to 
“Category I – Unfitting Conditions Which are Compensable and 
Ratable.” The only condition listed is “Low-Grade Reflex 
Sympathetic Dystrophy, Right Lower Extremity,” which the 
physician denies, but is supported in the body of the following 
paragraph and in documentation presented to the PEB. “There is 
nerve pain and degeneration in this area, but a different, more 
applicable VASRD code would have been appropriate.” The correct 
VASRD code should have been listed for “gross misalignment of the 
joint at the ankle.” In summary, there should have been more 
than one VASRD code taken into account and medical retirement 


with greater than 30 percent disability should have been 
assigned. 

 

 c. He rebuts the BCMR Medical Consultant’s advisory by 
stating that his medical records and MEB package contain evidence 
that proves his impairment is not just sensory, and instead is 
chronic, deformed, and degenerative in nature. 

 

 d. He explains his medical condition and why he believes his 
disability rating should be increased. He believes his degree of 
impairment is permanent rather than may be permanent. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 and do not find that it supports a determination that 
his separation with severance pay because of physical disability 
in 2007 was improper or contrary to the provisions of the 
governing regulations. Other than his own assertions, the 
applicant has provided no evidence that would lead us to believe 
the assessment of his medical condition was based on factors 
other than accepted medical principles. The evidence of record 
appears to indicate that the applicant was afforded due process 
through the disability evaluation system and we find the evidence 
submitted insufficient to determine otherwise. We therefore 
agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant’s detailed 
comments and adopt their rationale expressed as the basis for our 
decision. Consequently, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought. 

 

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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-02998 in Executive Session on 30 Aug 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

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

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 15 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 May 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair