ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1992-00643
IN THE MATTER OF:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His permanent medical retirement compensable disability rating
be increased to 100 percent.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was honorably discharged, on 22 Sep 91, by reason
of Early Separation Program – Strength Reduction. He received
$9000.00 in separation pay. He was credited with 10 year,
4 months, and 3 days of active duty service.
A similar appeal was considered by the Board, on 17 Nov 92, and
the applicant’s record was corrected as follows:
a. On 22 September 1991, he was found unfit to perform the
duties of his office, rank, grade or rating by reason of
physical disability incurred while entitled to receive basic
pay; that the diagnosis in his case was disc herniation at C5-
6 level, severe, recurring attacks, with intermittent relief,
rated at 40 percent; and that the disability may be permanent.
b. He was not discharged under the Early Separation
Program – Strength Reduction, on 22 September 1991, but on that
date he was relieved from active duty and, on 23 September 1991,
his name was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List
(TDRL). For an accounting of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicant’s separation, and, the rationale of
the earlier decisions by the Board, see the Records of
Proceedings at Exhibit G.
Based on the available evidence of record, the Informal Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB) recommended the applicant be permanently
retired with a compensable disability rating of 40 percent.
The applicant was initially rated by the Department of Veteran
(DVA) with a compensable disability rating of 10 percent in
1991. In 1999, his compensable disability rating was increased
to 70 percent by the DVA and in 2000 he was granted individual
unemployability.
Through his Member of Congress, the applicant submits a request
to have his medical retirement increased to 100 percent. He
contends that based on the increase of his compensable
disability rating by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA),
which increased his ratable condition to 70 percent disabled
with 30 percent for individual unemployability, then his
disability retirement from the Air Force should be increased as
well.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit H.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After carefully reviewing this application and the evidence
provided in support of the appeal, we were not persuaded that
the applicant’s corrected medical retirement with a compensable
disability rating of 40 percent should be increased. In his
most recent submissions, the applicant asserts that because the
DVA increased his rating to “70 percent disabled with 30 percent
for individual unemployability” warrants an increase to his
rating with the Air Force; however, in our view, the evidence
provided by the applicant is not sufficient to support a finding
that the applicant’s permanent disability rating should be
increased to 100 percent. In addition, the applicant is
reminded that the Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES)
only offers compensation for the medical condition that is the
cause for career termination; and then only to the degree of
impairment present at the time of final disposition or military
separation and not based on future progression of the disease.
Conversely, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) operates
under a separate set of laws which takes into account the fact
that a person can acquire physical conditions during military
service that, although not unfitting at the time of separation,
may later progress in severity and alter the individual's
lifestyle and future employability. Thus, the two systems
represent a continuum of medical care and disability
compensation that starts with entry on to active duty and
extends for the life of the veteran. In view of the above, we
find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of
the applicant’s request.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
2
that 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 this application
in Executive Session on 19 June 2012, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
with Exhibits.
dated 5 Aug 11, with attachments.
Panel Chair
Exhibit G. Record of Proceedings, dated 28 Dec 92,
Exhibit H. Applicant’s Letter, Member of Congress,
3
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | bc-2011-04080
In view of the DVA rating decisions and the severity of her condition, the disability rating awarded by the Air Force should have been higher and she should have been retired by reason of physical disability. 60 percent – Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits to a diabetic care provider, plus complications that would not be compensable if...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-1999-00390-2
BC-1999-00390, the applicant requested that his record be corrected to reflect that his compensable disability rating of 60 percent be changed to 75 percent on the basis of unemployability. He maintains that these findings should have been reflected in his Air Force medical evaluation for permanent and total disability and should have been separately rated at the PEB. The applicant’s complete responses, with attachments, are at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01005
The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant’s total combined permanent disability percentage should be increased from 40 to 60 percent to reflect the severe nature of his bilateral foot pain, which prevented him from reasonably performing his military duties. In the applicant’s case, the Air Force limited its unfit finding to his bilateral foot condition since that was the only condition limiting the performance of his military...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02292
The FPEB reviewed his case and recommended permanent retirement with a 30 percent disability rating. Further, it must be noted that the service disability boards must rate disabilities based on the individual's condition at the time of evaluation. AFPC/DPPD'S complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the evaluation stated he wanted his disability rating changed from...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01206
Subsequent to being evaluated by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) and Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB), the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of AFR 35-4 (Placed on Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL)). Following a period of observation and treatment on TDRL status, he was permanently disability retired on 12 Jun 1986, with a disability rating of 40 percent for his condition and received pay in the grade of colonel, with over 26 years...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 00978
The BCMR Medical Consultant's complete 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 31 Jul 09 for review and comment within 30 days. We note the applicant currently has a combined DVA disability rating of 60 percent. Title 38, allows the DVA to provide compensation for servicemembers who incur a service-connected medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00978
The BCMR Medical Consultant's complete 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 31 Jul 09 for review and comment within 30 days. We note the applicant currently has a combined DVA disability rating of 60 percent. Title 38, allows the DVA to provide compensation for servicemembers who incur a service-connected medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088561C070403
Counsel also states that the applicant was seen by the VA and was rated as 100 percent disabled effective 12 October 1999. Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitability for the soldier and the Army. Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military duty, awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014695
The evidence of record shows that the applicant was diagnosed with "moderately severe" atrophy of upper and lower leg muscles with a 40 percent disability rating and an overall disability rating of 50 percent. The 40 percent disability rating he received is consistent with the medical evidence, the formal PEB findings, and the VASRD. Additionally, the applicant offers the fact that he was awarded a 60 percent disability percentage rating from the VA as proof that he should have received...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01948
Further, it must be noted the USAF disability boards must rate disabilities based on the members condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. However, based on a preponderance of the evidence the applicants disability rating of 70 percent was properly adjudicated and we find no evidence which would lead us to believe that his disability rating...