RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03085 

 

 COUNSEL: NO 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Air Force disability rating be amended to match his 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability rating. 

 

2. His official records be corrected to show that his multiple 
sclerosis (MS) diagnosis was combat related. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. His DoD disability ratings do not reflect the full spectrum 
of service related diagnoses identified by the DVA since his 
disability retirement. 

 

2. His MS should have been determined to be a combat related 
disability. Many Veterans who deployed to the Middle East have 
been diagnosed with MS. His DVA doctor provides information 
that can link his MS to a wartime situation. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant initially entered the regular Air Force on 
7 Mar 01, and served as an Electrical Systems Apprentice in 
support of Operations SOUTHERN WATCH and ENDURING FREEDOM. 

 

On 30 Oct 03, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) 
recommended the applicant be permanently retired with a 
30 percent disability rating for his MS, and the applicant 
concurred with the IPEB findings on 3 Nov 03. 

 

On 19 Dec 03, the applicant was permanently retired for physical 
disability with a combined compensable disability rating of 
30 percent for MS, and was credited with 2 years, 9 months, and 
13 days of total active service. 


The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility, which are included at Exhibits C and E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
increase his Air Force disability rating to match the subsequent 
disability rating issued by the DVA, indicating there is no 
evidence of an error or an injustice. The Department of Defense 
(DoD) and the 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. 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, Air Force disability 
boards must rate disability based on the member’s condition at 
the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of the member’s 
condition at the 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 a condition. This often results in different 
ratings by the two agencies. In this case, the member submitted 
his DVA overall disability rating decision of 80 percent, dated 
2 Aug 10. Per the DVA Schedule for Rating Applicant 
Disabilities, which is used by both the DVA and Services to rate 
disabilities, MS has a minimum rating of 30 percent. MS can be 
rated on other residual conditions associated with the disease 
and this would result in a rating of higher than 30 percent. 
The DVA did rate several residual conditions related to the 
applicant’s MS. The DVA also rated other conditions unrelated 
to his MS which were not submitted as part of this original 
Medical Evaluation Board in 2003, as they were not considered 
unfitting or military service. Each residual condition must be 
determined to be separately unfitting for military service. 
Since the IPEB did not see evidence that the member’s residual 
conditions were separately unfitting for military service at the 
time of retirement, the member was permanently retired with a 
disability rating of 30 percent. The applicant could have 
appealed the IPEB rating and requested a Formal PEB, but did not 
exercise his right of appeal. No error or injustice occurred 
during the disability process or the rating applied at the time 
of the IPEB. 

 

A complete copy of the 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 24 Feb 12 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
designate his MS diagnosis as combat related, indicating there 
is no evidence of an error or an injustice. In order to make a 
combat related determination, there must be evidence the 
condition was incurred as a direct result of combat. There is 
no such evidence to support his claim in this case. Even if the 
member’s symptoms originated while deployed to a combat zone, a 
combat related determination cannot be made unless a direct link 
has been established to show his condition is directly 
attributable to the combat. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force additional evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant on 24 Feb 13 for review and comment within 30 
days. As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit F). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
an injustice. While we note the letter from the applicant’s DVA 
physician indicating it is his opinion the applicant’s medical 
conditions related to MS are combat related, neither the 
physician nor the applicant has provided any conclusive evidence 


establishing that the applicant’s onset of MS was the direct 
result of armed combat. 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 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-2011-03085 in Executive Session on 2 Apr 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 26 Jan 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 13 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair