RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01472
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His compensable disability rating of 20 percent be increased to
40 percent.
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Before contracting Type 1 Diabetes, he was able to do his
primary duties as an aircraft loadmaster. Afterward, he was no
longer able to keep his flying status because it would place
undue risk upon the crew and mission. Because he was restricted
in his duties, he believes his disability rating should be
changed to 40 percent in accordance with the Veterans Affairs
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his
Medical Evaluation Board/Review in Lieu of (MEB/RILO) Summary,
AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report; Aeromedical
Summary; Termination of Aviation Service; Commanders Letter of
Impact to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and character
reference letters for the PEB.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 25 Aug 09, the applicant underwent a MEB due to Diabetes
Mellitus Type 1 and his case was referred to the Informal
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). The IPEB found the applicant
unfit for further military service and recommended a compensable
percentage for disability of 20, with severance pay for Diabetes
Mellitus Type 1, under VASRD rating code 7913. The applicant
appealed this finding to the Formal PEB; however, after
consulting with counsel, he waived his earlier election to
demand a formal hearing. On 16 Mar 10, the Secretary of the Air
Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) recommended the applicant be
separated with a compensable percentage for disability of 20 and
discharged with severance pay.
On 28 Jul 10, the applicant was discharged from active duty,
under the provisions of AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for
Retention, Retirement, and Separation, with a compensable
disability rating of 20 percent. He was credited with 3 years,
9 months, and 26 days of active duty service.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPFD recommends denial, stating, in part, that the
preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice
occurred during the disability process or at the time of
separation. The applicant had no episodes of ketoacidosis or
hypoglycemic reactions requiring hospitalizations.
In addition, DPFD noted the differences between the Military
Disability Evaluation System (MDES) and the DVA and how both
systems operate under two separate laws and in concert provides
complete disability evaluation of service-connected medical
conditions.
The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 28 Jun 13 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. We took notice
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of
the case; however, the applicants case has been reviewed by the
Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and we did not
find the evidence provided sufficient to overcome its assessment
of the case. Therefore, we agree with the OPRs recommendation
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision
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 sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-01472 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 14, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 10 Jun 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00105
On 16 Jun 10, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) reviewed the case file and medical records and also recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent for diagnosis of POTS using VASRD code 8299-8210. Her condition has not changed in severity, the DVA made their rating by correctly applying the laws for analogous ratings. In this respect, the applicant is requesting that her medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement based on the 80 percent...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00909
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00909 COUNSEL: JERICHO DUTCHOVER, DAV HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea be added to his AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, dated 14 Jan 08, and included as part of his overall disability rating. His medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05149
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05149 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His military personnel records be corrected to reflect that he was permanently retired for physical disability, with a combined compensable disability percentage of 100 percent, instead of being discharged for physical disability with a combined...
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 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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03095
On 6 March 2000, the applicant submitted her rebuttal letter to SAFPC requesting a disability retirement, with a compensable disability rating of 40 percent. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant summarized the information contained in the applicant’s personnel and medical records and is of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence of the record supports a disability rating of 20 percent. A complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02820
On 5 May 94, the Air Force PEB recommended that the applicant be permanently retired with a combined disability rating of 30%. Current Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records reflect a combined compensable disability rating of 100% percent for his unfitting conditions, which includes a rating of 20% for type II diabetes mellitus. At the time of his CRSC application, a 60% rating for the combat-related disability was required.
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-02215
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) inaccurately rated his medical condition as 20% disabling. On 24 Feb 99, the IPEB found him unfit for further military service and recommended he be discharged with severance pay with a compensable rating of 20%. On 15 Mar 99, the Air Force PEB directed the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a disability rating of 20%.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01142
The MEB recommended referral to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). When the applicant was removed from the TDRL he was not entitled to a new DD Form 214 since the time spent on the TDRL was not active duty time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his argument that his records should be corrected to reflect that he is...