RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00711
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His medical discharge with severance pay be changed to a medical
retirement.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His diagnosis of Schizoid Personality Disorder was only given to
him by one Sir Force contract psychologist while undergoing a
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). During the same period, he was
diagnosed by three different private doctors as having Bi-Polar
disorder. He was prescribed medication typical for individuals
with Bi-Polar Disorder. He was subsequently denied a medical
retirement based on this single diagnosis after 11 years of
honorable service. After being discharged, he received a
service-connected disability rating of 30 percent for Bi-Polar
Disorder from the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA).
The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his
appeal.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
served on active duty from 14 November 2000 to 30 October 2009.
On 19 March 2009, an MEB diagnosed the applicant with right knee
pain and referred his case to the IPEB. On 26 May 2009, the
IPEB considered the applicants case and agreed with the MEB
findings. The IPEB recommended the applicant be discharged with
severance pay at a ten percent disability rating. The applicant
agreed with the IPEB findings and recommendation on 1 June 2009.
As a result, he was released from active duty effective 30
October 2009 for disability with severance pay. He served 8
years, 11 months, and 17 days on active duty.
According to a DVA Rating Decision, dated 27 July 2010, the
applicant was awarded a combined 80 percent disability rating
for his conditions of Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) (50%),
Lumbar Spine Degenerative Arthritis (10%), Right Knee
Degenerative Arthritis, Patellofemoral Syndrome (10%), and Right
Ankle Degenerative Changes (10%).
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. DPFD states the DVA disability
evaluation system operates under separate laws. Under Title 10,
United States Code (USC), Physical Evaluation Boards must
determine if a members condition renders them unfit for
continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank
or rating. The fact that a person may have a medical condition
does not mean that the condition is necessarily 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 the board renders a finding of unfit, the
law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature
termination of their career. 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. It is the charge of the DVA to
pick up where the Air Force must, by law, leave off. Under
Title 38, USC, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition
based upon future employability or revaluate based on changes in
the severity of a condition. This often results in different
ratings by the two agencies.
The preponderance of evidence reflects no error or injustice
occurred in the applicants disability process.
The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 22 March 2013 for review and response within 30
days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no
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.
________________________________________________________________
_
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-2013-00648 in Executive Sessions on 24 October 2013,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00648:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Aug 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 6 Mar 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 13.
Panel Chair
2
3
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00711
After being discharged, he received a service-connected disability rating of 30 percent for Bipolar Disorder from the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA). Under Title 10, United States Code (USC), Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a members condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...
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 2013 01985
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a 21-page brief from counsel, with attachments; copies of NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, issued in conjunction with her 21 Feb 11 transfer to the Retired Reserve; DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with her 23 Feb 11 release from active duty; Reserve Order EK-2605, retirement order, dated 16 Feb 11, and various other documents associated with her request. It...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02860
Further, it must be noted the United States 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 the time. The Medical Consultant concurs with the recommendation of the IPEB for a discharge with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating for chronic neck pain as the only condition found to be unfitting for continued military service at the time of separation. The complete BCMR...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | bc-2013-01038
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01038 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation orders be rescinded to allow his return to active duty. _______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Aug 2012, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) reviewed the medical board...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01972
Further, it must be noted that the USAF disability boards must rate disabilities based on the members condition at the time of evaluation. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice regarding the applicants disability/medical discharge. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00325
Had he been on active duty at the time, the condition should have been included in the MEB case and would have resulted in an increased rating. The applicant provided documents from the DVA, dated 30 Jan 13, which reflects the same disability rating as at the time he was found unfit for his boarded conditions. Further, it must be noted that the service disability boards must rate disabilities based on the individual's condition at the time of evaluation.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01951
On 27 July 2007, the IPEB found her unfit for further military service and recommended permanent retirement with a disability rating of 50 percent for major depressive disorder, social and industrial adaptability impairment: considerable. Under Title 10, USC, Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a members condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating. Further, it must be noted the USAF disability boards must rate...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01763
SAFPC noted the applicants medical record reflected insufficient evidence to find her conditions were separately unfitting or resulted in her inability to perform her duties or deploy. The AFBCMR Medical Consultants complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the evaluations and states the military is behind the curve in understanding her condition and rating...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00942
Additionally, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the DVA disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws. In addition, if the rating reflects a snapshot of the members condition at the time, then the vast disparity between the assessment of the DVA and the assessment of the doctor must be addressed as both examinations occurred during the same time period and addressed the exact same medical condition of Major Depressive Disorder. Further, there is no apparent relationship...