RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03113
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her symptoms of Sjogrens Syndrome should have been rated for
consideration for a medical retirement rather than a disability
discharge. Prior to her discharge she displayed symptoms of
Sjogrens and was diagnosed with de Quervains Tendonitis and
arthritis of the Trapezium bone of her right hand. In 2005, she
was diagnosed with primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC), and in 2006,
she was diagnosed with Sjogrens and Raynauds Syndromes. She
further contends the medication Aulin/Nimesulide she was
prescribed may have caused her PBC.
In support of her request, the applicant provides a copies of her
DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge from the Armed
Forces of the United States, Social Security Card, Drivers
License, and documents extracted from her medical records.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 30 Aug 93, the applicant contracted her initial enlistment in
the Regular Air Force. She served as a Supply Management
Craftsman.
On 5 Apr 04, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB). The MEB diagnosed her with severe right de Quervain
Tenosynovitis her and recommended that she be referred to an
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).
On 14 Apr 04, the IPEB found the applicant unfit and recommended
her separation with severance pay with a 10 percent compensable
disability rating. On 26 Apr 04, the applicant concurred with
the findings and recommendations of the IPEB.
On 14 Jun 04, the applicant was discharged with severance pay
with a 10 percent disability rating. She served 10 years,
9 months, and 15 days of active service.
The Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) disability evaluation systems operate under
separate laws. Under Title 10, U.S.C, a PEB must determine if a
condition renders a member unfit for continued military service.
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 individual 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 that the service
disability boards must rate disabilities based on the
individual's condition at the time of evaluation. 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 DoD and DVA.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPD recommends the requested relief be denied. DPPD states
the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice
occurred during the disability process.
The complete AFPC/DPPD 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 21 Oct 11, 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:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial noting that while
there may have been sufficient evidence of record for the DVA to
establish a nexus between the applicant's military service and
her post-service diagnosis of PBC with possible secondary or
associated Sjogren's and Raynaud's Syndrome, neither of the
conditions presented as independent diagnosable impediments to
the performance of the applicant's military duties to the extent
that warranted a retroactive unfit finding for each and inclusion
in her discharge disability rating computation. The evidence
does not reflect there existed a cause and effect relationship
between the applicant's post-service diagnosis of PBC, Sjogren's
and Raynaud's Syndrome and her inability to perform of her
military duties.
The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at
Exhibit E.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant on 24 Jan 12, 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 an error or injustice. After
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is not
persuaded that relief should be granted. The applicant was
separated for an unfitting condition that interfered with her
ability to continue to serve on active duty and was rated based
on the seriousness of her condition at the time of separation.
It appears the applicant believes that her subsequent diagnosis
of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) in 2005 and Sjogrens and
Raynauds Syndromes in 2006 should receive consideration in
changing her disability discharge to a medical retirement.
However, we do not find the applicants assertions and the
documentation provided sufficient to convince us that the
conditions diagnosed subsequent to her service were present and
unfitting at the time of her separation. In this respect, we
note the military service disability system can only offer
compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries
which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued military
service and were the cause for career termination. Thus, the
mere presence of a medical condition during military service does
not automatically constitute a basis for a disability separation
or retirement. As for the applicant's assertion that the
medication she was prescribed during her service for an unrelated
condition likely caused her PBC, while this fact may help
establish a connection with military service, it does not
establish a causal relationship with the applicant's inability to
perform her military duties at the time of her discharge or as a
contributory reason for shortening her military career.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
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 issue(s)
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 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-2011-03113 in Executive Session on 22 Mar 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Vice Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Military Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 21 Sep 11.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBBR, dated 21 Oct 11.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
20 Jan 12.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Jan 12.
Vice Chair
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01086
The contended conditions adjudicated as not unfitting by the PEB were DDD (cervical spine), hypothyroidism and primary biliary cirrhosis. At the MEB NARSUM examination, the condition was controlled with medication. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans Affairs Treatment Record xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, DAF Director of Operations Physical Disability Board of Review SFMR-RB MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency (TAPD-ZB / xxxxxxxxxxxxxx), 2900...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02263
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the record is warranted. Even if a Medical Evaluation Board was undertaken, it would be highly unlikely that her disability rating would have been higher than the 10 percent rating awarded four years later by the DVA. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02313
The CI was started on hydroxychloroquine (specific drug therapy for Sjogren’s syndrome) with some improvement in her symptoms.Notes in the STRproximate to separation indicated the CI’s condition was stable,with no evidence of incapacitating episodes in the previous 12 months.At the MEB examination dated 31 October 2002, 6 months before separation, the CI reported pain in her shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, and knees.The MEB NARSUM cited the DD Form 2808, Report of Medical Examination for...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02912
On 10 Sep 08, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) referred her to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), based on the diagnoses of metabolic syndrome and fibromyalgia. The applicant did not agree with their findings and recommendation On 9 Dec 10, a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) reviewed her case and also recommended her removal from the TDRL and discharge with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00946
Therefore the Board concluded the CI’s persisting fatigue condition was appropriately rated by the PEB and that rating under the code for chronic fatigue syndrome was not warranted. An MEB examination on 26 January 2006, noted the condition was “doing some better.” Medical records after separation show continued problems with the condition and recommendation for surgery in 2007. In the matter of the chronic neck pain condition, the Board unanimously recommends that it be added as an...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01933
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s records is warranted. There is no documentation in her service medical record that indicates she was diagnosed or...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00437
CI requested increased rating for RSD left lower extremity and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The member further contends her Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD) of the left lower extremity is best rated at Severe, 30% under VASRD Code 8799-8721; to add bilateral Carpal Tunnel Syndrome under VASRD Code 8799-8712, best characterized as Mild as a Category I Unfitting Condition with a disability rating of 10%; and to place Capt B--- on the Temporary Disability Retired List with a combined...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-03140
Further, it must be noted that the service disability boards must rate disabilities based on the individual's condition at the time of evaluation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends the requested relief be denied. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01236
On 26 July 2001, the SAFPC determined the applicant was physically unfit for continued military service due to a physical disability which existed prior to service and directed she be separated without disability benefits. The disability processing records indicate the applicant was treated fairly throughout her DES process and was properly rated under disability laws and policy at the time of her medical discharge. The applicant’s case was processed through the medical...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01002
On 20 October 1982, the applicant submitted a request for release from extended active duty to be effective 1 December 1982. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, states that the purpose of the military disability evaluation system is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating members who are unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached...