RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04738 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His narrative reason for separation be corrected to reflect 
he was discharged as a result of “Gulf War Syndrome” or at least 
“unknown-Brain Vasculitis/Gastrointestinal/lung disease 
accompanied by fibromyalgia and an unknown autoimmune disease.” 

 

2. His records be corrected to show that he was retired for 
physical disabilities and provided a 100 percent combined 
compensable disability rating rather than medically discharged 
with severance pay. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His exposure to toxins caused multiple disabling symptoms. He 
suffered from many health issues after the exposure, including 
lung and stomach problems. He was not properly treated after he 
had surgery to remove internal organs. The Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) and Social Security Administration (SSA) 
rated him 100 percent disabled. His rights were violated by the 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when he was not allowed to gather 
medical documentation to support his case. 

 

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits of a personal 
statement and a list of facilities he visited for his illness. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 Aug 92 and 
was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant. 

 

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 3 Oct 06, to 
determine whether he should be continued on active duty due to 
the diagnosis of asthma and the MEB referred him to the Informal 
Physical Evaluatio Board (IPEB). 


 

On 6 Dec 06, an IPEB convened and determined the applicant was 
unfit for continued active duty service and recommended he be 
discharged with severance pay and a compensable rating of ten 
percent for diagnoses of chest pain with exertion, suspicious for 
exercised-induced bronchospasm, which improved with medications. 

 

On 11 Dec 06, the applicant non-concurred and requested a formal 
hearing with counsel. On 31 Aug 07, the Formal Physical 
Evaluation Board (FPEB) reviewed the case file and recommended a 
combined compensable disability rating of 20 percent. The FPEB 
noted the applicant was diagnosed with mild persistent asthma, 
requiring only pre-exercise use of Albuterol. The applicant 
rebutted the findings of the FPEB to the Secretary of the Air 
Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) and requested he be retired with 
a combined compensable disability rating of 50 percent for his 
asthma and chronic knee and back pain. The SAFPC concurred with 
the disposition and recommendation by the IPEB and FPEB and 
directed the applicant be discharged with severance pay and a 
combined compensable disability rating of 20 percent. On 
28 Dec 07, the applicant was separated for physical disability 
with severance pay and a combined compensable disability rating 
of 20 percent. He was credited with 4 years and 13 days of total 
active service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the preponderance of 
evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the 
disability process or the rating applied at the time of the 
boards. 

 

As background, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department 
of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Disability Evaluation Systems operate 
under separate laws. Under Title 10, United States Code, 
Physical Evaluation Boards 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 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 
United States Air Force Disability Boards must rate disabilities 
based on the member's condition at the time of the evaluation; in 
essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. It is the 
charge of the DVA to pick up where the Air Force must, by law, 
leave off. Under Title 38 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 complete AFPC/DPSD 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 6 May 11 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 an 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 
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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 issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-04738 in Executive Session on 7 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 16 Dec 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated, 19 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated, 6 May 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair