RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01111 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His 20 percent disability rating for medical separation due to 
diabetes mellitus be changed to a 40 percent rating and a medical 
retirement. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The board acknowledged a 40 percent rating but denied the rating 
based on 60 percent criteria. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of a 
Department of Veterans Affairs Rating and a copy of SAF/MRBP 
memorandum. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 November 
1994. 

 

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 4 June 2009 and 
referred the applicant's case to an Informal Physical Evaluation 
Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of diabetes type I. On 18 August 
2009, the IPEB found him unfit for further military service and 
recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating 
of 20%. The applicant did not agree with the findings and 
recommended disposition of the IPEB and requested a formal 
hearing. On 23 November 2009, the FPEB found him unfit for 
further military service based on a diagnosis of diabetes 
mellitus type I, poor control. The FPEB further recommended 
discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 20%. He 
appealed the FPEB decision to SAF/PC who concurred with the 
findings and recommendation of the FPEB and directed discharge 


with severance pay effective 28 September 2010. He served 
15 years, 9 months, and 29 days on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability 
evaluation systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, 
USC, 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 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 Title 38, 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 preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice 
occurred during the disability process or with the rating applied 
at the time of the boards. 

 

The DPSD complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Counsel for the applicant states the FPEB failed to properly rate 
the applicant in accordance with law and regulations, failed to 
apply the correct evidentiary standard to its rating 
determination, and denied him a full and fair hearing. In 
addition, the SAFPC failed to address the issues raised in his 
rebuttal as required by Federal law. The advisory opinion did 
not address any of the substantive arguments raised in the 
application for correction of military records nor the arguments 
raised in the SAFPC rebuttal. The applicant’s diabetes met the 
requirements of a 40% rating and he should have been awarded that 
rating and permanently retired. 

 

 

 

 


The Counsel’s response 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 an error or an injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case and the Board majority does not find that it 
supports a determination that his disability was improperly rated 
at the time of his discharge with severance pay. We note the 
contentions of the applicant and his counsel that his diabetes 
met the requirements of a 40 percent rating and the applicant 
should be permanently retired. However, as indicated by the 
SAFPC who upheld the FPEB decision “Notably missing from the 
submitted record is documentation of specific glucose readings 
and disabling hypoglycemic events that differentiate the cautions 
and regulations given by the endocrinologist from those that 
would be given to all diabetics taking insulin, a critical 
difference between the 20 and 40 percent disability rating of the 
VASRD.” In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence the 
applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate 
regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not 
applied, 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 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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: 

 

The majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or 
injustice and recommends the application be denied. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 


 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-01111 in Executive Session on 29 November 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the 
application. XXX voted to grant the applicant’s request 
and provided a minority report. The following documentary 
evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01111 was 
considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 March 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD dated 19 April 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 2011. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, dated 19 June 2011. 

 Exhibit F. Minority Report, dated 17 January 2012.