AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2011-04143 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His 30 percent medical retirement rating for physical disability 
be changed to a 100 percent rating. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
In  Mar  1992,  he  was  released  from  active  duty  because  of  his 
diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. 
 
After 20 years of faithful service to his country the Air Force 
classified him as being physically unfit for duty. Consequently, 
the Air Force cut his dreams short. 
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active 
Duty; AF Form 356,  Findings  and  Recommended  Disposition  of  USAF 
Physical  Evaluation  Board,  and  various  other  documents  in 
support of his request. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On  15  Jul  1991,  the  Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB) 
recommended the applicant be placed on the Temporary Disability 
Retired  List  (TDRL)  with  a  30  percent  disability  rating  for 
ulcerative  colitis.    The  applicant  non-concurred  with  the 
findings  of  the  IPEB  and  requested  a  formal  hearing  with 
counsel. 
 
On  23  Aug  1991  the  Formal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (FPEB) 
reviewed  the  case  and  recommended  he  be  returned  to  duty.    On 
3 Oct 1991, the Physical Review Council reviewed the findings of 
the  FPEB  and  recommended  he  be  found  unfit  and  placed  on  the 
TDRL with a disability rating of 30 percent.  As a result, the 
applicant's case was forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Council (SAFPC) for final adjudication. 
 
On  11  Oct  1991,  SAFPC  concurred  the  applicant  was  unfit  and 
placed him on the TDRL with a disability rating of 30 percent. 

 

On  19  Aug  1993,  he  was  reevaluated  by  the  IPEB  and  they 
recommended  the  applicant  be  permanently  retired  with  a 
disability rating of 30 percent. 
 
On 20 Aug 1993, the applicant concurred with the findings of the 
IPEB. 
 
On  24  Sep  1993,  he  was  permanently  retired  in  the  grade  of 
master  sergeant  (MSgt,  E-7)  via  Special  Order  ACD-2716  with  an 
effective date of 4 Oct 1993.  He served 20 years, 9 months, and 
9 days of active service. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
HQ  AFPC/DPSD  recommends  denial.    DPSD  states  the  preponderance 
of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during 
the  disability  process  with  the  rating  applied  at  the  time  of 
the evaluation boards. 
 
The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.    The  Medical 
Consultant  states  the  applicant's  request  for  a  change  from  a 
30 percent  to  a  100  percent  disability  rating  with  medical 
retirement  must  be  considered  in  view  of  the  medical  evidence 
available at the time of separation from active duty service and 
release  from  the  TDRL.    Simply  stated,  the  burden  of  proof  to 
demonstrate  a  material  error  or  injustice  must  be  objectively 
supported  by  clinical  findings  and  medical  documentation 
sufficient to warrant a retroactive adjustment in the disability 
rating. 
 
The  narrative  summary  of  the  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB) 
conducted  in  Jun  1990  and  other  clinical  notes  contain 
information  which  documents  significant  improvements  after  the 
start  of  medical  therapy.    There  was  no  evidence  of 
malnutrition, anemia or the presence of frequent bowel movements 
following the diagnosis.  However, due to the associated health 
and  mission  risks  attendant  with  a  diagnosis  of  ulcerative 
colitis,  and  the  requirement  for  ongoing  treatment,  the  IPEB 
determined that the applicant's physical disability rendered him 
unfit  for  duty  and  recommended  a  30 percent  disability  rating 
with placement on TDRL for further treatment.  Utilizing Veteran 
Affairs Diagnostic Code 7323, a 30 percent disability rating is 
assigned  for  a  moderately  severe  disease  with  frequent 
exacerbations.    Conversely,  a  100 percent  rating  is  assigned 
when  there  is  pronounced  disease  resulting  in  marked 
malnutrition,  anemia  and  general  debility,  or  with  serious 
complications  such  as  liver  abscess.    The  Medical  Consultant's 
review of all available medical documentation did not reveal any 
findings  consistent  with  the  100  percent  disability  rating 
criteria.    Review  of  laboratory  results  and  physical  findings 
fail  to  indicate  any  indication  of  marked  malnutrition,  anemia 

 

2 
 

or  general  debilitation.    Supervisor  and  co-worker  letters  of 
support  following  the  period  of  initial  diagnosis  through 
placement  on  TDRL  clearly  demonstrated  that  the  applicant 
maintained  a  sufficient  level  of  work  performance  which  would 
not have been attainable given the level of physical impairment 
associated with a 100 percent disability rating. 
 
The  Medical  Consultant  notes  that  the  30  percent  disability 
rating  assigned  by  the  DVA  has  been  sustained  upon  multiple 
appeals by the applicant dating back to the period of separation 
from active duty service.  A comprehensive review of DVA medical 
documentation  fails  to  document  any  clinical  or  symptomatic 
findings consistent with a 100 percent disability rating either 
immediately  after  separation  or  any  subsequent  time  period.  
Hence,  the  Medical  Consultant  identifies  no  medical  basis  for 
the  recommendation  to  retroactively  assign  a  100  percent 
disability rating for the applicant's ulcerative colitis.  Given 
the  absence  of  clinically  significant  disease  progression  or  a 
change in the DVA's rating decision since the period of initial 
rating  determination,  the  Medical  Consultant  concludes  that  a 
100  percent  disability  rating  is  not  appropriate  and  that  no 
error  or  injustice  occurred  in  determining  the  percentage  of 
physical disability. 
 
The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit 
D. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
He enlisted in the Air Force during the Vietnam era because he 
wanted  to  elevate  himself  above  his  social  status  and  truly 
believed in the American way of life.  He served his country for 
20 years and the awards he received during that time attest to 
the  fact  that  he  performed  his  duties  in  more  than  a 
professional manner.  He acquired various ailments while in the 
military  and  some  of  these  ailments  will  cause  him  serious 
problems  as  he  ages.    He  did  not  ask  to  be  retired  from  the 
military,  but  was  told  he  was  unfit  for  military  service.    He 
asserts that he gave the Air Force 20 years of his life had if 
it  was  not  for  his  present  condition  (ulcerative  colitis)  he 
would  have  served  10  more  years.    He  feels  that  his  condition 
should have warranted a 100 percent disability rating. 
 
His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

3 
 

 
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.    After 
thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence  of  record  and  noting  the 
applicant’s  contentions  and  response  to  the  Air  Force 
evaluations,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  his  disability  rating 
should be changed to 100 percent.  We find that no evidence has 
been  presented  to  show  that  he  was  not  properly  rated  under 
established guidelines based on the medical evidence provided or 
that he was not afforded a full and fair hearing required under 
disability laws and policy. Therefore 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 
injustice.   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  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 
that  the  application  will  only  be  reconsidered  upon  the 
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered 
with this application. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

4 
 

 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application 
in Executive Session on 2 Aug 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 
 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 

 
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-04143: 
 
   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Oct 2011, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSD, dated 30 Jan 2012. 
   Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 Jun    
               2012. 
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Jun 2012. 
   Exhibit F.  Email Communiqué, SAF/MRBC, dated 2 Jul 2012. 
   Exhibit G.  Letter, applicant, dated 25 Jul 2012. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Panel Chair 

  
  

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

5