RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02871 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His honorable discharge be changed to a medical separation and he 
receive medical compensation retroactive as of 6 April 1983. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was not officially discharged from his military obligation. 
His discharge was not justified. He did not sign his NGB Form 
22, Report of Separation and Record of Service. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal 
statement, documents extracted from his military personnel 
records, and medical documentation. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s NGB Form 22 reflects he served a total of 
15 years 8 months and 7 days of service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in 
the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at 
Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant notes the NGB Form 22 was altered by the applicant 
with the added word “Medical” and the physician’s caduceus symbol 
affixed to the document. This is presumably to show the 
progression of the applicant’s disease in 2007, assuming these 
are indeed photographs of his leg. 

 


To give the Board an overview of how the Air Force views 
conditions like the applicant’s, AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations 
and Standards [for Retention], under the subject of vascular 
conditions, the Consultant notes that “chronic venous 
insufficiency (post—phlebitic syndrome),” is listed among 
potentially disqualifying medical conditions, “when symptomatic 
or requiring elastic support or chronic anticoagulation.” The 
applicant’s early photographs are suggestive of stasis 
dermatitis, which likely had its origin in venous insufficiency. 
The applicant’s later photographs represent a marked progression 
of the disease entity, as reflected by the large ulcer crater on 
the left leg and associated lower limb swelling. Also, under AFI 
48-123, varicose veins, when they are “severe and symptomatic” 
may also be disqualifying and may preclude continued military 
service. However, with respect to the applicant’s eligibility 
for military disability compensation, even under a presumption 
that his medical condition was service incurred or aggravated, 
the photographs alone are insufficient to determine that he 
should have been placed on Medical Hold for the purpose of 
conducting a Medical Evaluation Board in 1983; or that he would 
have been found unfit for continued service by a Physical 
Evaluation Board, were he not already separating under provision 
of ANGR 39-10. 

 

The applicant has supplied no evidence that his duty performance 
was considered inadequate at the time of his release from 
military service, nor is there evidence of inadequate duty 
performance that was caused by his medical condition. 

 

The Medical Consultant is not apprised of whether the applicant 
has received service connection and compensation by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) as of this date. He is 
nevertheless advised that the military Departments, operating 
under Title, 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offers 
disability compensation for and when a medical condition is the 
cause for career termination; and only to the degree of 
impairment present at the “snap shot” time of final military 
disposition. 

 

The presence of a medical condition that was not unfitting while 
in service, and was not the cause of separation or retirement, 
that has later progressed in severity causing disability 
resulting in possible service connected DVA compensation is not a 
basis to grant retroactively military disability discharge or 
disability compensation. The Medical Consultant opines the 
applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or 
injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. 

 

 

 

 

The Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 


_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant provided documents extracted from his military 
personnel records and medical documentation. 

 

The additional documentation provided 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 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 AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence 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 an 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-2011-02871 in Executive Session on 8 May 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02871 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 August 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 16 December 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 20 December 2011. 

 Exhibit E. Additional Documentation, Applicant.