RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03835 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His disability rating be increased from ten percent to 
50 percent. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) did not consider the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 50 percent rating decision 
when rating his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at ten 
percent. Based on the DVA’s separate and concurrent review of 
his disability nine days prior to the FPEB’s decision, his PTSD 
should have been rated at 50 percent by the Air Force. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a supporting 
statement and copies of extracts of his military personnel 
records related to the FPEB decision, his DVA rating decision, 
separation orders, and excerpts from an accident report related 
to his PTSD. 

 

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

 

_________________ ______________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he served as 
a member of the Connecticut Air National Guard in the grade of 
master sergeant (E-7) during the matter under review. 

 

On 19 Jan 99, a medical evaluation board (MEB) was convened to 
determine the applicant’s fitness for duty. After consideration 
of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical 
examination, the MEB established that his PTSD and Major 
Depressive Disorder served to possibly undermine his 
qualifications for worldwide duty and referred the matter to the 
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). 

 

 


On 8 Mar 99, the IPEB determined the applicant’s PTSD rendered 
him unfit for military service and recommended he be temporarily 
retired with a 30 percent combined compensable disability 
rating. 

 

On 9 Jun 99, the applicant was relieved from his assignment and 
placed on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL), 
effective 10 Jun 99. 

 

In accordance with 10 USC 1210, a physical examination shall be 
given at least once every 18 months to each member of the armed 
forces whose name is on the TDRL to determine whether there has 
been a change in the disability for which they were temporarily 
retired. If it is determined the member’s physical disability 
is of a permanent nature and stable and rated at least 
30 percent under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) 
at the time of the determination, their name shall be removed 
from the TDRL and he/she shall be permanently retired. However, 
if it is determined the member’s physical disability is less 
than 30 percent disabling at the time of the determination, and 
if the member has less than 20 years of service, his name shall 
be removed from the TDRL and he may be separated. 

 

On 22 Sep 00, the applicant was directed to undergo a periodic 
physical evaluation on 6 Oct 00 in accordance with the 
requirements of 10 USC 1210. 

 

On 2 Nov 00, the IPEB determined the applicant’s PTSD had 
improved somewhat since his last TDRL evaluation, but still 
rendered him unfit to perform his military duties. Accordingly, 
the IPEB recommended he be assigned a combined compensable 
disability rating of ten percent and discharged with severance 
pay. 

 

On 26 Nov 00, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and elected to appeal the finding to the Formal Physical 
Evaluation Board (FPEB). On 11 Jan 01, the FPEB determined the 
applicant’s PTSD was more appropriately rated at 30 percent and 
recommended that his name be retained on the TDRL and the 
applicant concurred with that finding. 

 

On 18 Dec 01, the applicant was again directed to undergo a 
periodic physical evaluation on 10 Jan 02 in accordance with the 
requirements of 10 USC 1210. 

 

On 12 Feb 02, the IPEB determined that while the applicant’s 
PTSD continued to be unfitting, his condition had continued to 
improve since being placed on the TDRL allowing him to further 
stabilize his life. Accordingly, the IPEB recommended he be 
assigned a combined compensable disability rating of ten percent 
and discharged with severance pay. 

 

 


On 2 Mar 02, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and elected to appeal at a formal hearing, contending that his 
PTSD had not improved, that he continued to struggle on a daily 
basis. 

 

On 18 Apr 12, the FPEB upheld the IPEB determination and 
recommended the applicant be given a combined compensable 
disability rating of ten percent and discharged with severance 
pay due to physical disability. The applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the action and elected to submit an appeal to the 
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC). 

 

On 3 Jun 02, SAFPC directed the applicant be removed from the 
TDRL and discharged with severance pay with a disability rating 
of ten percent. In arriving at its decision, SAFPC reviewed the 
evidence and testimony presented and the remarks of both the 
IPEB and FPEB, the TDRL evaluation, the applicant’s service 
medical record, and the medical summary leading to the MEB. 

 

On 26 Jun 02, the applicant’s name was removed from the TDRL and 
he was discharged by reason of physical disability with 
entitlement to severance pay. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the AFBCMR Medical 
Consultant, which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, indicating 
there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The pivotal 
issue for consideration is the rating disparity between the DoD 
and DVA. In order to evaluate the applicant's petition for a 
higher disability rating, the TDRL examination report dated 
January 10, 2002 is essential to completing a proper assessment. 
The psychiatrist notes summarize the applicant's PTSD symptoms 
which include recurrent and intrusive thoughts, flashbacks, 
nightmares, and other symptoms. The PTSD is further described 
as chronic with marked impairment for further military duty and 
definite impairment for civilian social and industrial 
adaptability. Prognostic comments indicate the requirement for 
lifetime therapy and medication to control symptoms. Also 
stated, "The applicant remained competent for pay and records 
purposes." In regards to social functioning, comments by the 
psychiatrist indicate, "He continues to run a small business and 
is financially stable. He currently owns a house and has a 
roommate." Under Title 10, United States Code (USC) the 
military departments can only offer compensation for and when an 
illness or injury is the cause for termination of a service 
member's career; and then only to the degree of impairment 
present at the "snap shot" time of final military or TDRL 
disposition. The DVA rating schedule designates a 50 percent 


rating for the following, "Occupational and social impairment 
with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms 
as: flattened affect, circumstantial, circumlocutory or 
stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once per week; 
difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of 
short- and long-term memory; impaired judgment; impaired 
abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; 
difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and 
social relationship." However, the information contained in the 
TDRL examination report fails to document a degree of functional 
impairment consistent with these findings, and the documentation 
presented by the applicant is not sufficient for a 50 percent 
disability rating. Moreover, there is no documentation 
describing the more salient features of a DVA 50 percent 
disability rating such as panic attacks, memory loss or impaired 
judgment/thinking. To the contrary, the applicant was noted to 
run a small business, performed duties as an Emergency Medical 
Technician, and owned and operated a home with a roommate. 
These entries imply that a significantly higher level of 
functioning was present at the time of TDRL separation compared 
to those described in the DVA 50 percent rating description. 
While there are Congressional concerns of disparities in rating 
decisions between Military Departments and the DVA for the same 
medical condition, resulting in legislation directing the use of 
DVA or mutually agreed upon (DoD) policies when adjudicating 
disability cases, this does not guarantee there will be no 
variation in clinical assessments and opinions between or among 
equally competent and credentialed medical authorities; whether 
a DVA, civilian, or military provider. Finally, the applicant 
should also be reminded that, unlike the Department of Defense, 
operating under Title 10, United States Code, the DVA, operating 
under a different set of laws (Title 38, USC), offers 
compensation for any service incurred or aggravated medical 
condition, without regard to its impact upon a service member's 
retainability, fitness for duty, or reason for career 
termination. Moreover, the DVA is authorized to conduct 
periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the 
disability rating award (up or down) as the level of impairment 
from a given medical condition may vary (improve or worsen) over 
the lifetime of the veteran. Thus, the mere fact the applicant 
has received a different (higher) disability rating and 
compensation by the DVA does not constitute a justification for 
a like action by the DoD. The applicant has not met the burden 
of proof to justify the desired change of the record. 

 

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is 
at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant on 26 Jun 12 for review and comment within 
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 RECOMMENDS 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-2011-03835 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 12, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-03835 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Sep 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 22 Jun 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Jun 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair