RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04941
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be reviewed for a disability retirement.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Air Force doctors could not find the reason for his severe
pain. He finally agreed to the discharge when he could not
speak up for himself. He was forced out of the Air Force and
has been in severe pain for years. He should have been able to
stay in the Air Force and have medical coverage for his wife
and child. Instead, he was released without any disability.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his
DD Forms 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of
Transfer or Discharge; DD Forms 256AF, Honorable Discharge
Certificate; 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, personal statements, and various other
documents in support of his request.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_______________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the applicants letter dated 15 Sep 1959, he
requested that he be discharged for physical disability. He
acknowledged that he fully understood his rights and elected
not to have his case reviewed by the physical evaluation board.
He further acknowledged that he understood that his discharge
would be without a disability retirement or disability
severance pay. However, it did not preclude him from applying
for benefits from the Veterans Administration. The specific
reason and authority for his discharge is reflected in the
Request for Discharge for Physical Disability, letter, dated
1 Oct 1959 at Exhibit B.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of
the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_______________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. DPFD states that the
preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice
occurred during the disability process. The applicant has
included medical information from the Department of Veterans
Affairs dated 26 Oct 1978, which reflects he was denied service
connection for his organic back condition. He has submitted no
new medical documentation.
The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
His back pain was not a pre-existing condition. He was in
perfect health when he enlisted in the Air Force. His back
pain began after he was stationed in Turkey. He concedes that
he was angry with Air Force doctors because they could not find
a cause for his pain. He should have been sent to a legal
representative instead of stating he was crazy. He was not
offered legal representation. The applicant further explains
why he allowed Air Force doctors to force him out the Air
Force.
In further support of his appeal, the applicant provides
numerous witness statements, DD Form 149, Application for
Correction of Military Record, and duplicate copies of
documents included in his original submission.
His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_______________________________________________________________
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 an error or an injustice. After a
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants
complete submission, we are not convinced he has been the
victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant contends
his back pain was not a pre-existing condition; the evidence of
record reflects that he was discharged for psychogenic musculo-
skeletal reaction (back pains due to psychiatric disturbance)
which existed prior to service and was not aggravated by his
military service. He also contends that he was not offered
legal representation; however, according to the applicants
Request for Discharge for Physical Disability letter, dated
15 Sep 1959, he certified that his request for discharge was
fully explained to him and that he understood that he could be
discharged for physical disability without disability
retirement or severance pay. Therefore, we find the applicant
has not provided sufficient evidence which would lead us to
believe that he should receive a disability retirement.
Therefore, 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. In view of
the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no basis to recommend granting the relief sough 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.
_______________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR BC-2012-
04941 in Executive Session on 25 Jul 2013, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
, Vice Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-04941:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPFD, dated 23 Jan 2013.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 2013.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, 3 Apr 2013, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03092
He cannot sleep unless medicated and then he wakes up feeling exhausted for the day. The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) reviewed the applicants case on 22 August 2007 and recommended discharge with severance pay (DWSP) with a disability rating of 10 percent for the diagnosis of chronic right shoulder pain, history of multiple injuries. He was not boarded for PTSD and waived his right to have his condition reviewed by the Formal Board and the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04255
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. 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 evidence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | bc 2012 01218
In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of a letter from her civilian medical provider, extracts from her medical records, AF Form 356, and other various documents in support of her application. On 29 Apr 11, the IPEB reviewed the applicants case, found her unfit and recommended she be removed from the TDRL and discharged with severance pay with a compensable disability rating of 10 percent for chronic law back pain in accordance with the Veterans...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00522
In a letter dated 8 January 2013, the applicant stated that he received an explanation of the IPEB findings from his assigned Air Force attorney and agreed with the findings of the IPEB and waived his right to a FPEB hearing. According to the DVA Rating Decision dated 16 January 2014, the evaluation of DVT, which was 10 percent disabling, was increased to 40 percent effective 29 October 2013. At the time of the IPEB findings, the DVA rated the applicants DVT at 0 percent.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05273
SAFPC noted The members low back condition is unfitting for continued military service. The DPFD complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 25 January 2013, a copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05787
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05787 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) code of 2Q (medically retired or discharged) with the narrative reason for separation of Disability Existed Prior to Service Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) be revised to allow her commission in the United States Air Force. She...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01182
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01182 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry code (RE) 2Q (medically retired or discharged) be changed to allow him to reenlist. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His RE code precludes him from future consideration...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00648
Further, it is noted the Air Force 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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00259
The Board recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 20 percent. Further, it must be noted the Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member's condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 17 Feb 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 02972
She was again advised that she would need a 30 percent disability rating from DVA to be medically retired. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 10 Dec 10, a Medical Evaluation Board diagnosed the applicant with back pain with radiculopathy and referred her to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). In this respect, we note that in order for a member with less than 20 years of active military service to be eligible for disability...