RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01045 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

 

1. His medical documentation from the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) be added to his records. 

 

2. He receive a combined disability rating of 60 percent and 

be medically retired effective 29 January 2008. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He disputes the findings of his 18 month re-evaluation that 
occurred on 15 June 2009. During the evaluation, he was asked 
to perform a flex forward movement; which he did at 20 degrees 
until he felt a sharp pain. When he received the results, it 
stated he performed the flex forward movement at 85 degrees. He 
has not been able to bend that far since 2001. He has had 
several flex exams and has never bent more than 60 degrees. He 
is still being treated for low back pain and numbness in his 
left foot. 

 

Prior to his re-evaluation for his left knee, he had already 
experienced several incapacitating episodes that prevented him 
from working. He also had episodes that led him to receive 
Synvisc injections to relieve the pain. He is still being 
treated for his left knee pain. 

 

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a personal 
statement, copies of his medical records and a copy of his VA 
appeal decision. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered the Air National Guard on 30 April 1986. 
He was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant 
(E6). On 30 November 2007, pursuant to a Physical Evaluation 
Board (PEB), the Secretary of the Air Force directed the 
applicant be placed on the TDRL. He received a rating of 40 
percent for low back pain due to degenerative disc disease and 
10 percent for left knee pain due to medical meniscal tears and 
arthritis status post arthroscopic surgery. He was placed on 
the TDRL effective 29 January 2008, in the grade of technical 
sergeant, with a disability rating of 50 percent. 

 

On 11 December 2009, during the applicant’s TDRL re-evaluation, 
the Formal PEB found the applicant’s conditions had improved and 
stabilized, yet, he continued to be precluded from adequately 
performing the duties required of his office, grade, rank or 
rating and remained unfit for service. His back condition was 
rated 10 percent under VASRD section 5242 and his knee was rated 
10 percent under VASRD section 5099-5003. The Formal Physical 
Evaluation Board (FPEB) recommended he be medically discharged 
with severance pay and assigned a combined compensable 
disability rating of 20 percent. The applicant disagreed with 
the findings of the FPEB and requested his case be forwarded to 
SAFPC for review and a final decision. 

 

On 28 October 2010, having reviewed the facts and evidence of 
the case, to include testimony presented before the Formal PEB, 
remarks by the FPEB, remarks by the IPEB, the applicant’s 
service medical record, the narrative summary of the Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB), the Board concurred with the disposition 
recommended by the FPEB to discharge the applicant with a 
disability rating of 20 percent. 

 

The applicant had at least 20 years of satisfactory service, and 
therefore, had the option to elect retirement in lieu of 
disability severance pay. On 8 December 2010, the applicant 
elected to transfer to the Inactive Reserve Section for the 
purpose of applying for retirement and receiving retirement pay 
upon the age of 60. 

 

Effective 9 December 2010, the applicant was removed from the 
TDRL and transferred to the Inactive Reserve List in the grade 
of technical sergeant. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force which is located at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. The Department of Defense and the 
Department of Veterans Affairs disability evaluation systems 
operate under separate laws. The DVA rates service connected 
disabilities in an on-going fashion. However, the PEB rates 
only the unfitting disability as it exists at the time of the 
board. The fact that the DVA rates differently than the Air 
Force is not uncommon, nor does it show the Air Force’s rating 
was incorrect or unjust. The applicant’s case was reviewed by 
three separate boards that rendered essentially the same 
findings despite the fact the applicant had the opportunity to 
provide additional documentation supporting his claims at both 
the FPEB and SAFPC levels. There were also several 
inconsistencies between the applicant’s later exams and his 
stated history. 

 

The preponderance of the evidence reflects there was no error or 
injustice during the disability process or the rating applied at 
the time of the boards. 

 

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 19 August 2011, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received 
no response. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an injustice. The 
applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his 
contentions were duly noted. However, evidence has not been 
presented which would lead us to believe that his disability 
processing and the final disposition of his case were in error 
or contrary to the governing Air Force regulations, which 
implement the law. Other than his own assertions, the applicant 
has provided no evidence that would lead us to believe the 
assessment of his medical condition and the recommended 
compensable rating of 20 percent was in error. Therefore, 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-01045 in Executive Session on 2 February 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 8 Feb 11 and 24 May 11, 

 w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 18 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Aug 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair