RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04632 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His disability rating from the Air Force of 10 percent be 
increased to 30 percent and he receive a permanent retirement. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He believes the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) should 
have assigned him a 30 percent evaluation for his bipolar 
disorder to be consistent with the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA) disability rating. Had the DVA initially evaluated him at 
30 percent or if the FPEB waited until the DVA processed his 
appeal, the increased evaluation of 30 percent would have 
significantly affected the FPEB’s decision and would have 
resulted in him being retired from the Air Force vice being 
discharged with severance pay. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of a DD 
Form 294, Application for Review by the Physical Disability Board 
of Review (PDBR) of the Rating Awarded Accompanying a Medical 
Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States, a copy of 
the DVA Rating Decision, and a copy of a letter from SAF/MRBR. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant met an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) on 
5 Mar 10 and a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) on 27 May 
10. The IPEB and FPEB recommended him for discharge with a 
10 percent compensable disability rating for Bipolar Disorder 
Type II. The applicant disagreed with the findings of the IPEB 
and FPEB and provided a statement of rebuttal. 

 

On 12 Jul 11, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) sent a letter to AFPC/DPDD directing the applicant to be 
removed from the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) under 
provisions of Title 10, USC, Section 12210, and be discharged 
with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent. 
SAFPC’s rationale for its decision was based on the applicant’s 


diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder Type II. On a TDRL evaluation in 
September 2009 his Psychiatrist states, “the member is likely to 
have stable mood and function well in the civilian world if 
regular follow up care is maintained and treatment 
recommendations are adhered to”. The applicant is living with 
his wife and two kids with whom he reports to have good 
relations, shows good compliance with treatment recommendations, 
maintains fulltime employment and has not been hospitalized since 
discharge from active service. The applicant’s medical records 
fail to reflect instability or provide sufficient evidence that 
his medical condition is debilitating or causing social and 
occupational impairment. 

 

The applicant was removed from the TDRL and discharged on 10 Aug 
11. 

 

On 21 Sep 11, the applicant submitted an application to the PBDR 
requesting an increase in his disability rating from the Air 
Force; however, SAF/MRBR sent him a letter on 25 Oct 11 notifying 
him that the PDBR could not process his application. He was 
referred to the Air Force Board for Corrections of Military 
Records (AFBCMR). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. The preponderance of evidence does 
not reflect an error or injustice that occurred during the 
disability processing. In addition, 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 member from 
fulfilling their military duties. The law provides appropriate 
compensation if the board renders an unfit finding due to 
premature termination of their career. However, the Department 
of Defense and the DVA disability evaluation systems operate 
under separate laws and are charged to pick up where the Air 
Force must, by law, leave off. DPSD notes that the DVA rated the 
applicant’s disability at 10 percent and did not increase it to 
30 percent until 9 Aug 11. 

 

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant responded by disagreeing with the Air Force opinion 
and strongly proposes that his case be reevaluated. The DVA 
initially rated him with a 10 percent disability rating for his 
bipolar condition; however, he rebutted the DVA decision that 
took over a year to be finalized. He received a decision from 


the DVA that agreed that he was 30 percent disabled and it was 
retroactive from the date of his initial claim. He did not have 
the DVA rating at the time of his FPEB on 27 May 10, but feels 
that his case is in error or unjust. 

 

His Air Force counsel at the FPEB hearing stated that this was 
going to be an uphill battle. The counsel stated, “that the DVA 
rating has the majority of the weight in deciding at what 
percentage the USAF FPEB board will place you”. This is why he 
feels so strongly about his case being reevaluated with his 
current information which supersedes the DVA documentation used 
during the FPEB, which could have possibly affected the outcome 
and final disposition of his Air Force service. He believes he 
should be permanently retired from the Air Force, rather than 
being discharged with severance pay. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that warrants 
corrective action. In this respect, the applicant was initially 
rated at a 50 percent disability rating and placed on the TDRL by 
the Air Force for Bipolar Disorder Type II. However, 
subsequently SAFPC directed that he be removed from the TDRL and 
discharged with severance pay. While we note the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility, 
we believe based on the evidence of record, that the applicant’s 
chronic condition met the criteria for awarding a 30 percent 
disability rating. In this regard, we note the DVA's retroactive 
assignment of a 30 percent rating was based upon appellate review 
of the evidence that was present at or about the time of the 
applicant's initial release from military service (and not the 
time of TDRL re-evaluation), which resulted in the DVA's errant 
initial 10 percent rating. Therefore, in consideration of the 
totality of the evidence presented in this case, we recommend his 
records be corrected as indicated below. 

 

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 pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that 

 

 a. On 10 August 2011, he was not discharged with severance 
pay and removed from the Temporary Disabiity Retired List (TDRL), 
but on that date, his name was placed on the Permanently 
Disability Retired List (PDRL) with a disability rating of 30 
percent. 

 

 b. The election of Survivor Benefit Plan option will be 
corrected in accordance with the member’s expressed preferences 
and/or as otherwise provided for by law or the Code of Federal 
Regulations. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-04632 in Executive Session on 24 Jul 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Nov 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

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

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

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Feb 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair