RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02031
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records confirm his frostbitten feet.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His 10 percent disability compensation was confirmed. The
weather was warm most of the time and did not affect his feet.
In support of his appeal, the applicant submits supporting
letters and documentation from his reconstructed master
personnel records.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Army Air Corps who
served from 16 November 1943 through 7 November 1945. The
applicants narrative reason for separation is listed as
discharge surplus of aircrew trainees who volunteered from
civilian life.
The applicants records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the
National Personnel Records Center. Therefore, additional facts
and circumstances surrounding his service could not be verified.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The applicant
states while traveling from North Carolina to Washington DC, he
was rerouted to Pittsburgh over the Allegheny Mountains during
blizzard conditions. The pilot had the cockpit windows open for
better visualization and due to lack of oxygen in the cabin;
some of the personnel fell asleep. Upon arrival, the applicant
had to be taken to the hospital suffering from frostbitten feet.
He believes his records were not amended and the documentation
never caught up to his file. In a letter written by the
applicant on 13 October 2012, to the Army Board for Correction
of Military Records, he states he received 10 percent disability
compensation and that it was confirmed. He then states it was
later disallowed due to the fact that he had not gone for
further treatment.
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.
In this case, the applicants DD Form 214 notes he was released
from the Army Air Corps for surplus of aircrew trainees who
volunteered for civilian life. This is consistent with the
applicants supplied materials and therefore the Medical Advisor
opines that the applicant was able to reasonably perform the
duties of his office, grade, rank and rating and therefore, was
not unfit for military duty, in turn, not eligible for entry
into the DES.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is authorized to offer
compensation for any medical condition determined service-
incurred, without regard to and independent of, its demonstrated
or proven impact upon service members retainability. With this
in mind, Title 38 U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation
system, was written to allow compensation ratings for conditions
that were not considered unfitting during military service or at
the time of separation. Therefore, members can be found fit for
release from military service for one reason and sometime
thereafter, receive compensation ratings from the DVA for one or
more medical conditions that are determined service-connected.
The applicant alludes to an awarded 10 percent compensation,
which was later rescinded. Unfortunately, there was no
documentation submitted. It is the prerogative of the DVA to
increase or decrease his awarded compensation. It is
recommended the applicant has the DVA reevaluate his condition
to make a more comprehensive evaluation.
The complete BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant submits several letters reiterating the events of
surrounding his injury as well as his attempt to retrieve his
records.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at
Exhibit E.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The application was not filed within three years after the
alleged error or injustice was discovered, or could have been
discovered, as required by Section 1552, Title 10, United States
Code (10 USC 1552), and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Thus the
application is untimely.
2. Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552 permits us, in our discretion, to
excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice. We have
carefully reviewed the applicant's submission and the entire
record, and we do not find a sufficient basis to excuse the
untimely filing of this application. The applicant has not
shown a plausible reason for delay in filing, and we are not
persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice
which require resolution on the merits at this time.
Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in the interest of
justice to excuse the untimely filing of the application.
________________________________________________________________
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the
decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as
untimely.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-02031 in Executive Session on 28 January 2014,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-02031 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 11 May 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 23 Jun 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dtd 26 Jun 13.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicants Response, dtd 12 Jul 13,
w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01976
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. The complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant states the only surgery she had after her discharge was in the Veterans Hospital to attempt to correct residual damage from a surgery completed while she...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 04647
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision and extracts from his military personnel records. On 26 Jul 89, the recommendation for discharge was approved by the discharge authority. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 02196
At issue is whether those conditions, during her periods of service, would have been disqualifying for military service. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She disagrees with the recommendation for the following reasons: the 15-year law was not in effect when her cumulative health issues were extremely limiting. While the applicant contends it was her...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00557
He was not aware of the possibility of being medically retired because he had been through a Fast-Track Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe that at the time of his separation, a physical condition existed that was determined by competent medical authority to be a physical disability which specifically rendered him unfit for continued military service. _______________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01109
We note the BCMR Medical Consultant states that had the applicant indeed completed a MEB in 2004 and was found unfit by a PEB, his case would have been referred to SAFPC for a final disposition. In this respect, we note that the applicant in PD2009-00221 was initially referred to the PEB for asthma, mild persistent and found unfit for continued military service and separated with a 10 percent disability rating, whereas in the case before us, there is no evidence the he was unable to perform...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04591
Thus, while the applicant has received compensation ratings from the DVA, the military Disability Evaluation System, operating under Title 10, United States Code (USC), can by law only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences. It could not...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03004
With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not proven unfitting for military service at the time of separation. The complete BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26 Mar 2013 for review and...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02437
________________________________________________________________ __ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to upgrade his discharge or that he be granted a medical retirement. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our...