RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04255 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His medical discharge with severance pay be changed to a medical 
retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was rated unfit for active duty and honorably discharged with 
a 20 percent compensable disability rating. Within that same 
year, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated him 
90 percent service-connected disabled for the same conditions. 
He was rated 100 percent Individual Unemployable which included 
Memory/Cognitive deterioration and Post-Traumatic Stress 
Disorder (PTSD) as it manifested later. His PTSD was service 
connected and attributed to Gulf War Illness. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 15 November 1985. On 
17 November 1998, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) referred him 
to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for chronic low 
back pain. On 3 February 1999, the IPEB found that his chronic 
low back pain was unfitting and recommended that he be 
discharged with severance pay with a 20 percent compensable 
disability rating. The applicant agreed with the findings and 
recommendations of the IPEB and waived his right to a formal PEB 
hearing. On 19 February 1999, the Secretary of the Air Force 
directed he be separated from active service for a physical 
disability under the provisions of 10 USC 1203, with severance 
pay. 

 

The applicant was honorably discharged on 13 April 1999. His 
narrative reason for separation was listed as disability, 
severance pay. He was credited with 13 Years, 4 months and 
29 days of active duty service. 

 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. The applicant was referred to an 
MEB for chronic back pain. The MEB convened on 19 November 
1998; he was not boarded for PTSD. 

 

The Department of Defense (DoD) and the DVA disability 
evaluation systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, 
U.S.C, Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a member’s 
condition renders them unfit for continued service relating to 
their office, grade, rank or rating. The fact that a person has 
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. If there is a finding of 
unfitness, the law provides appropriate compensation due to the 
premature termination of their career. DoD rates disabilities 
based on the member’s condition at the time of evaluation; in 
essence a snapshot of their condition at the time. 

 

It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the Air Force must, 
by law, leave off. Under Title 38, the DVA may rate any 
service-connected condition based upon future employability or 
reevaluate based on changes in the severity of a condition. 
This often results in different ratings by the two agencies. 
The IPEB reviewed the documents submitted by the applicant and 
determined the range of motion on the DVA rating shows a flexion 
of 30 degrees with pain. All the other degrees of range of 
motion would still be a 20 percent rating for severance pay. 

 

The preponderance of the evidence reflects that no error or 
injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time 
of separation. The applicant was not boarded for PTSD. Should 
the Board find that PTSD should have been found unfitting at the 
time of the 1998 medical board, they can provide the appropriate 
disability rating. 

 

The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The applicant’s 
records do not support that he displayed memory, depression or 
anxiety issues while on active duty. The Medical Consultant was 
also unable to find any duty limitations, deployment limitations 
or physical profiles to question the applicant’s fitness as 
related to PTSD or migraine headache history. The applicant 
could have had PTSD considered as an unfitting condition and 
awarded a rating at that time if he deemed appropriate. The 
Medical consultant opines these conditions were not unfitting 
for military service. 

 

As stated, the DVA may rate service connected disabilities based 
upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the 
severity of a condition. This often results in different 
ratings by the two agencies. The IPEB reviewed the documents 
submitted, found the member unfit and recommended he be 


discharged with severance pay with a 20 percent compensable 
disability rating in accordance with the Veteran’s Affairs 
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASARD) guidelines for 
diagnosis of chronic back pain. The VA, using the same 
guidelines, found the applicant to have flexion of 35 degrees 
with pain; extension of 10 degrees in their 1999 evaluation: 
both agencies objective measurement falls within the criteria 
for 20 percent disability rating. 

 

The military Disability Evaluation System (DES) was established 
to maintain a fit and vital fighting force. By law, the DES can 
only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or 
injuries which specifically render a member unfit for continued 
active service and were the cause for career termination; and 
then only to the degree of impairment present at the time of 
separation and not based on future occurrences. Service members 
are considered unfit when the evidence establishes that a 
member, due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably 
perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, to include 
duties during a remaining period of Reserve obligation; as was 
the case with the applicant’s chronic back pain. Although he 
was treated for a number of other episodic illnesses and 
injuries during his service, the evidence shows that it was his 
chronic back pain, not his PTSD or migraine headaches, which was 
shown to have interfered with his military service to the extent 
or duration that warranted processing through the military DES. 

 

The applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or 
injustice that warrants the desired change in the record. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at 
Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states he agrees with the background as stated by 
the advisories. He also states that while he understands there 
is no medical documentation regarding his memory, depression or 
anxiety issues while he was active duty, those issues were 
keenly evident to his family. His cognitive memory impairment 
had not fully manifested itself at the time; this happens with 
Gulf War veterans. PTSD is something, he guesses, that happens 
when you are held a gun point in the Kuwait oil fields. His 
migraines were dealt with by taking Tylenol. He did not 
consider asking about these issues as he was not aware of them 
at the time. 

 

His contention is the disparity between the 20 percent rating 
from the Air Force and the 40 percent rating from the VA while 
looking at the same information. When being counseled by the 
subject matter expert at the base hospital, he was not told 
about the disparity or the cutoff for retirement. He was only 
made aware of this by a neurology nurse at the VA hospital. 


 

He is not requesting compensation for anything other than his 
back. The VA has compensated him for other medical conditions 
including PTSD; however, his only request is that the Air Force 
corrects his 20 percent severance to a 40 percent medical 
retirement. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

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

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice with regard 
to the applicant’s disability rating. Evidence has not been 
submitted which would lead us to believe the rating he received 
at final disposition was improper. The evidence of record 
indicates that the applicant was afforded due process through 
the disability evaluation system and we find the evidence 
submitted insufficient to determine otherwise. Therefore we 
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFPC/DPFD and 
the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their 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. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04255 in Executive Session on 16 May 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 1 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dtd 20 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 27 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dtd 15 Mar 13. 

 Exhibit F. E-Mail, Applicant’s Response, dtd 13 Apr 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair