DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00238 
  
COUNSEL:    
HEARING DESIRED: YES 

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
 
    
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  He  be  medically  retired  and  placed  on  the  Permanent 
Disability Retirement List (PDRL) with a disability rating of at 
least 30% based on his diagnosed Schwannoma, Somatoform Disorder 
associated  with  anxiety  disorder,  and  Post  Traumatic  Stress 
Disorder (PTSD). 
 
2.  He receive any back disability pay.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  was  removed  from  the  Temporary  Disability  Retirement  List 
(TDRL)  on  account  of  conditions  that  the  Physical  Evaluation 
Board  (PEB)  claimed  were  resolved,  although  he  continues  to 
receive treatment.   
 
His  most  recent  period  of  active  duty  service  was  from 
22 March 1999  until  22  November  2002.    Prior  to  that,  he  had 
nearly five years of honorable service.  On 21 August 2002, the 
Air  Force  Physical  Evaluation  Board  published  its  formal 
findings.  On 23 November 2002 he was placed on the TDRL with a 
compensable 
On 
17 November 2004  he  was  notified  that  the  PEB  had  recommended 
that  his  Schwannoma  (benign  nerve  sheath  tumor)  had  resolved. 
The  board  also  added  a  vertigo  diagnosis.    Finally,  the  board 
recommended  a  compensable  percentage  of  10%  for  Somatoform 
Disorder associated with anxiety.  
 
His  hearing  was  held  in  February  2005,  with  findings  published 
on  25  February  2005.    On  26  July  2005  he  was  notified  that  he 
would  be  removed  from  the  TDRL  and  discharged  with  entitlement 
to disability severance pay and a disability rating of 20%.  On 
15  August  2005  he  was  discharged  with  an  honorable 
characterization  of  service.    The  findings  of  the  PEB  were 
deficient  as  his  civilian  employer  had  released  him  from  duty 
due  to  blackouts,  seizures,  vertigo  attacks,  short  term  memory 
loss and other medical issues.  
 

disability 

physical 

rating 

of 

40%. 

 

He  was  under  the  care  of  his  doctor  as  early  as  2003.    His 
doctor’s impression was that he suffered from a number of issues 
including  Lumbar  Schwannoma  and  PTSD.    He  was  unable  to  drive 
because of automobile accidents related to the “gray-outs.”  The 
doctor  specifically  noted  the  one  clear  diagnosis  is  Post 
Traumatic Stress Disorder.   
 
In November 2004 the suggestion that the Schwannoma had resolved 
prompted,  in  part,  his  removal  from  the  TDRL.    In  2005  he  was 
still receiving the diagnosis related to the Schwannoma from his 
doctor.  In April 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
noted that he suffered from severe PTSD.  In March 2007 the DVA 
rated him at 100% disability.    
 
He was prematurely removed from the TDRL though he was receiving 
treatment  for  the  conditions  that  the  PEB  claimed  had  been 
resolved.    He  continues  to  suffer  from  both  the  Schwannoma  and 
severe PTSD.  He should be placed on the PDRL on account of his 
Somatoform Disorder, Schwannoma, and severe PTSD. 
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides his counsel’s 
brief with attachments.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
According to a copy of his DD Form 214,  Certificate  of  Release 
or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  this 
period of active duty on 22 March 1999.  On 22 November 2002 he 
was released with an honorable characterization of service and a 
narrative  reason  for  separation  of  “mandatory  retirement  – 
required  by  law  due  to  temporary  physical  disability.”    He  was 
credited  with  3  years,  8  months  and  1  day  of  active  duty 
service.    His  grade  at  the  time  of  discharge  was  technical 
sergeant  (TSgt),  E-6,  with  an  effective  date  of  pay  grade  of 
01 November 1998.   
 
The  applicant  was  placed  on  the  TDRL  on  23  November  2002.    On 
9 November  2004,  the  Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB) 
reevaluated the applicant’s case and recommended discharge with 
severance pay with a rating of 10%.  The applicant appealed to 
the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) and Secretary of the 
Air  Force  Personnel  Council  (SAFPC).    The  FPEB  and  SAFPC 
concurred  with  the  recommendation  for  discharge  with  severance 
pay.  The final finding was a 10% rating for Somatoform Disorder 
Associated  with  Anxiety  Disorder  as  well  as  a  10%  rating  for 
residual  left  leg  weakness,  status  post  excision  of  Schwannoma 
(Exhibit B).   
 

 

 
2 

The  applicant  was  removed  from  the  TDRL  on  26  August  2005  and 
discharged with severance pay effective 15 August 2005.   
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  or  in  the  ratings  applied  during  the 
processing of the applicant’s case.   
 
An MEB was submitted on the applicant for Status Post Schwannoma 
Resection  with  Persistent  Lower  Extremity  Weakness;  Somatoform 
Disorder  and  Anxiety  Disorder.    The  IPEB  adjudicated  the 
applicant’s  case  on  26  June  2002.    He  was  found  unfit  for 
Somatoform  Disorder  Associated  with  Anxiety  Disorder.    He  was 
rated  at  30%  for  this  condition.    He  was  also  found  unfit  for 
Schwannoma, Status Post Surgical Removal and Residual Weakness, 
Left Leg, and was rated at 10% for the condition.  His overall 
rating  from  the  IPEB  was  40%  for  these  conditions.    The  IPEB 
recommended a finding of temporary retirement.  On 11 July 2002, 
the  applicant  non-concurred  with  the  finding  and  requested  a 
formal  hearing  with  counsel.    The  applicant  contended  to  the 
FPEB that he should be permanently retired with a rating of 40% 
for  the  unfitting  conditions.    The  FPEB  adjudicated  the 
applicant’s  case  on  21  August  2002  and  concurred  with  the  IPEB 
findings  and  recommended  temporary  retirement  with  a  rating  of 
40%.  On 9 September 2002, the applicant, per advice of counsel, 
expressed  that  he  did  not  wish  to  contend  the  findings  of  the 
FPEB  and  concurred  with  their  findings.    The  applicant  could 
have  appealed  the  FPEB  findings  to  the  SAFPC  for  further 
adjudication but did not exercise his right to appeal.   
 
The  applicant  was  placed  on  the  TDRL  on  23  November  2002.    On 
9 November 2004, the IPEB reviewed the applicant’s case as part 
of the TDRL reevaluation process.  During the review they found 
Somatoform  Disorder  Associated  with  Anxiety  Disorder  to  be  the 
applicant’s  only  unfitting  condition.    They  recommended 
discharge  with  severance  pay  with  a  rating  of  10%.    The 
applicant  non-concurred  with  the  findings  and,  once  again, 
appealed to the FPEB.  On 25 February 2005, the FPEB concurred 
with  IPEB  findings.    On  28  March  2005,  the  applicant  non-
concurred with the FPEB and appealed to SAFPC contending that he 
should  be  permanently  retired  with  a  disability  rating  of  at 
least  30%.    After  reviewing  the  case,  SAFPC  determined  the 
applicant  to  be  unfit  and  that  he  be  discharged  with  severance 
pay with an overall rating of 20%.  He was granted a 10% rating 
for Somatoform Disorder Associated with Anxiety Disorder as well 
as  a  10%  rating  for  residual  left  leg  weakness,  status  post 
excision of Schwannoma.  This rating was considered final. 
 
There  is  no  documentation  to  indicate  the  applicant’s  case  was 
improperly  processed  at  any  level  of  the  Disability  Evaluation 

 

 
3 

Process.    Therefore,  there  is  no  basis  for  the  applicant’s 
rating  to  be  changed.    Any  future  rating  changes  for  the 
applicant’s conditions are now under the purview of the DVA. 
 
The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation (Exhibit D) was forwarded to 
the applicant on 27 March 2012 for review and comment within 30 
days.  To date, this office has not received a response.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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.  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 Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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 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 

 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application 
BC-2012-00238 in Executive Session on 21 August 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 January 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 28 February 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 March 2012 
 
 
 
 
                                     
                                   Panel Chair 
 

 

 
5