RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02670
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her narrative reason for separation be changed to
medical/service connected disability.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She should have been medically discharged. She is going back to
school and cannot receive her educational benefits unless her
records are corrected to reflect her medical discharge.
The applicant also contends that she did not receive the
NGB Form 438, Honorable Discharge Certificate, as stated in her
records. However, that form was submitted with her supporting
documentation.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal
statement, NGB Form 438, NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and
Record of Service, Special Order AA-467, Medical Separation Memo
and excerpts from her medical records.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard on 14 April
1973. On 7 December 1980, she was diagnosed with pigment
depositein characteristics with retinitis pigmentosa. According
to the narrative summary, she was told in 1968 or 1970 that she
had retinitis pigmentosa by her eye doctor. Additionally, she
has complained of night blindness since childhood. On
21 December 1980, she was medically disqualified for continued
service. On 1 September 1981, pursuant to Special Order, AA-
467, the applicant was relieved from her assignment and
honorably discharged. Her narrative reason for separation was
listed as ANGR 39-10 and her separation (SPD) code was JFT
(discharge no Board entitlement).
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The limited
medical evidence shows the applicant experienced some difficulty
with near and far vision. However, the record reflects her
vision is correctable to 20/20, or thereabout. An eye
evaluation dated 4 March 1980, showed the applicant had ring
scotoma of the visual fields that were consistent with retinitis
pigmentosa. An evaluation of dark adaptation indicated the
applicant does not dark adapt. She underwent a separation
physical with documented positive findings of pigment deposits
characteristics with retinitis pigmentosa in both eyes.
Additionally, she also stated she has complained of night
blindness since childhood.
Under AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards, any
disease, injury, infection process or sequelae involving the eye
that is resistant to treatment and or results; or night
blindness of such a degree the member requires assistance
traveling at night, is disqualifying. There is no evidence the
applicant appealed for retention as her right to do so.
However, the discharge authority would have retained the right
to separate the applicant even if returned to duty by a Physical
Evaluation Board for reasons of inability to support the
deployed mission or lack of availability for non-deployable
positions, among other reasons.
The applicant is correct in her assertion that she was released
due to a medical condition. However, since the medical
condition existed prior to service and was not permanently
aggravated by military service, the applicant did not qualify
for processing through the military disability evaluation system
for medical separation or retirement. She was processed through
the involuntary administrative discharge procedures for a
disqualifying non-duty related medical condition. The applicant
had also not attained at least 8 years of active military
service, upon which, her medical condition would have been
determined service-incurred.
The BCMR Medical Consultants complete evaluation is at
Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 8 March 2012, for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit C). 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 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 injustice. We
carefully considered the available evidence of record; however,
we found no indication the actions taken to affect the
applicants discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions
of the governing instructions. Therefore we agree with the
opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and
adopt his 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.
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 BCMR Docket Number
BC-2011-02670 in Executive Session on 17 April 2012, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to BCMR Docket
Number BC-2011-02670 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 14 Jul 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 20 Dec 11.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 8 Mar 12.
Panel Chair
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018217C070206
His retinitis pigmentosa was determined to be congenital, existing prior to his entrance onto active duty with no aggravation by his military service. The opinion states the applicant's disability processing was proper and the preponderance of evidence did not support the applicant's request. Preponderance of evidence is defined as that degree of proof necessary to fully satisfy the board members that there is greater than a 50% probability that the disease was neither incurred during nor...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013728
On 14 May 1986, a medical evaluation board (MEB) convened at Beaumont Army Medical Center, El Paso, TX, and after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the MEB found the applicant was diagnosed as having the medically-unacceptable condition of acephalgic migraines with transient loss of vision (existed prior to service (EPTS)) and the medically-unacceptable condition of probable conversion reaction aggravating the first diagnosis. On 3 December...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03985-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2009. It 1S immaterial whether or not the disqualifying defect was caused by RP or some other undiagnosed condition, such as optic neuropalhy or congenital nignt blindness as suggested by the retinal specialists you consulted after you were discharged from the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant completed 26 years of active service and retired effective 1 May 1989 in the grade of master sergeant (E-7) due to maximum years of service allowed by policy. The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show disability retirement for degenerative lumbar spine disease, his treated eye condition (lattice degeneration with retinal holes), and pseudofolliculitis barbae. There is no...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03941
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant had an existing prior to service (EPTS) eye condition that was waived at the time of his enlistment and he completed his four-year term of service receiving an honorable discharge. His eye condition was noted in his enlistment, periodic, and separation medical examinations, and there was no evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063506C070421
On 4 January 1996, the applicant underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB). On 16 April 1996, an informal PEB found the applicant to be physically unfit due to probable acute zonal occult outer retinopathy with suspected glaucoma, strabismus, and facial neuralgia, Veterans Affairs Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) codes 6099 (diseases of the eye, unlisted conditions), 6006 (retinitis), and 6078 (impairment of central visual acuity, vision in one eye 20/100). On 30 October 2001, a...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03702
Her reason for this action was a medical evaluation board that met at Lackland AFB, TX on 10 December 1996 which found he did not meet minimum medical standards to join the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant states that not only is corneal dystrophy of any type, including keratocopus of any degree disqualifying for entry, but so is the corrective surgery. Department of Defense and Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02615
On 4 May 2005, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) considered the evidence of the applicant’s medical records and personal records and returned the applicant to duty. The BCMR Medical Consultant states a treated detached retina itself is not disqualifying for military service and does not warrant referral for MEB unless there are residual visual impairments when using both eyes that are incompatible with service. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003550
The applicant provides his service medical records. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibility, and procedures that apply in determining whether a member is unfit because of physical disability to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003550
The applicant provides his service medical records. DA Forms 3349 (Medical Condition - Physical Profile Record) dated 10 July, 4 and 18 September and 20 November 1979, show that under the PULHES he was assigned a physical profile of T-3 under E. Item 6 (Individual has the Defect(s) Listed Below) stated he had a scar in the back of his left eye secondary to an infection with a tendency to recur. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation)...