RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04170
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her discharge with disability severance pay be changed to a
medical retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was discharged with severance pay from the Air Force/Air
National Guard; however, she should have been medically retired.
All of her medical issues were present when she was honorably
discharged, and she was rated at 60 percent disability by the
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).
She has been rated at 90 percent by the Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA).
In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty, documents pertaining to her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB),
DVA records, and a letter from her husband.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 1 Aug 03, the applicant entered active duty.
On 18 Apr 05, the applicant met an Informal Physical Evaluation
Board (IPEB), which found her unfit and recommended she be placed
on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a disability
rating of 60 percent. She concurred with the decision on 22 Apr
05.
On 22 Jun 05, she was released from active duty and placed on the
TDRL with a 60 percent disability for pulmonary embolism.
On 8 Jan 07, a TDRL re-evaluation was conducted, and at that time
there was no evidence of persistent or recurrent embolism.
Although no longer presenting a current functional impairment, it
was determined that her predisposition for recurrence (5 to 20
percent) posed an unreasonable risk for return to duty.
On 24 Jan 07, the applicant mailed in her concurrence to the
Boards findings and elected to receive the severance pay.
On 18 Feb 07, she was removed from the TDRL and discharged with
severance pay in the grade of master sergeant by reason of
physical disability with a zero percent disability rating.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the fact that a person
may have a medical condition does not mean the condition is
unfitting for continued military service. To be unfitting, the
condition much 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
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 Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) to pick up where the Air
Force must, by law, leave off. Under Title 38, Veterans
Benefits, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based
upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the
severity of the condition. This often results in different
ratings by the two agencies. The applicant was not boarded for a
bipolar or anxiety disorder for which the DVA has rated
70 percent and 30 percent, respectfully.
The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 2 Aug 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment within 15 days. To date, a
response has not been received (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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 opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its
rationale 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2010-04170 in Executive Session on 1 Sep 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 19 Nov 10.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Aug 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02534
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS She underwent her TDRL re-evaluation in May 09 and the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), after reviewing the results of the examination, recommended her removal from the TDRL and subsequent disability discharge with a disability rating of ten percent. In her rebuttal to SAFPC, she noted concern with her disability rating and felt that if she was unfit for duty, she should be given a disability rating of 30 percent, or be...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-00545
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00545 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 40 percent disability retirement rating she received be increased. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the record be changed to reflect the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02228
The IPEB noted that she had declined further “ablation surgery.” On 9 March 2006, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ 5 APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 15 Feb 13, by letter, the applicant amended her request and now ask to be medically retired instead of being returned to duty. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03405
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03405 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her diagnosis of Adrenal Insufficiency be added to her AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, dated 22 Jul 10, and included as part of her overall disability rating. It should also be noted that had...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00019
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve (AFR) on 28 Jul 75. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. Exhibit G. Letter, Counsel, dated 17 Sep 09.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03494
The DPSD complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Apr 11 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-03391
If the applicant’s medical board had been worked under the normal process rather than as a possible imminent death, she would have received a total of 40 additional days-20 days of PTDY and 20 days of outprocessing time. However, these additional days would not have provided her with 20 years of active service at the time of her separation date. AFPC/DPSD's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | bc-2011-04080
In view of the DVA rating decisions and the severity of her condition, the disability rating awarded by the Air Force should have been higher and she should have been retired by reason of physical disability. 60 percent – Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits to a diabetic care provider, plus complications that would not be compensable if...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02719
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02719 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His permanent compensable disability rating of 30 percent should be increased to 50 percent and made retroactive to his retirement date. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on the available...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03058
According to a Duty Limiting Condition Report, dated 25 June 2008, she was placed in a Not Present for Duty Status in accordance with Air Force Instruction 48-123, paragraph (A)(2) and Air Force Reserve Command Surgeon General Policy Memorandum 06-01, due to a non- duty related medical condition that required a Worldwide Duty Evaluation (WDE) and evaluation by an MEB or PEB. Further, it must be noted the USAF disability boards must rate disabilities based on the members condition at that...