RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03497
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His compensable disability rating of 20 percent be changed to 
40 percent and he receive a permanent disability retirement.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that his service connected medical conditions 
(bladder outlet obstruction and urinary frequency) should be 
rated the same as the Department of Veterans Affair (DVA) at 
40 percent.

The DVA rating states that for urinary frequency, the condition 
for which he was medically discharged, a "daytime voiding 
interval of less than one hour…;” designates a 40 percent 
rating.  He has a daytime voiding interval of approximately 
37 minutes on average.  He has numerous records from urologists, 
voiding diaries, statements from supervisors and coworkers, and 
other evidence showing his daytime voiding interval is less than 
one hour, as the DVA rating shows.  Therefore, the Formal 
Physical Evaluation (FPEB) and the Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Council (SAFPC) incorrectly rated him at 20 percent 
instead of 40.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; copies of his DVA decisional documents; medical 
documents, and various other documents.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 Mar 11, the Informal PEB (IPEB) diagnosed the applicant 
with bladder outlet obstruction with urinary frequency.  They 
recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay with 
a compensable disability rating of 20 percent.  On 15 Apr 11, 
the FPEB reviewed the case and recommended discharge with 
severance pay with a disability rating of 20 percent for 
diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction with urinary frequency.  
The applicant non-concurred and requested a review of his case 
with his rebuttal by the SAFPC.  On 30 Jan 12, the SAFPC 
directed the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a 
compensable disability rating of 20 percent.  

On 28 May 12, the applicant was discharged with severance pay 
with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent.  

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial, stating, in part, that based the 
preponderance of the evidence reflects that no error or 
injustice occurred during the disability process or at time of 
separation.  

As background, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the DVA 
disability evaluation systems operate under separate laws.  
Under Title 10 USC, Physical Evaluation Board (PEBs) must 
determine if a member's 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 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 must be noted the USAF 
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.  It is the charge of the DVA to 
pick up where the AF 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 complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends granting the applicant 
relief by amending the record to reflect that he was found unfit 
and retired permanently with a 40 percent disability rating, 
under the authority of AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for 
Retention, Retirement, and Separation, effective his established 
date of separation and under the established Veterans Affairs 
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) rating code.  

First, all should acknowledge that, unless witnessed by a 
disinterested party, as in a military urine drug-screening 
program or in a hospitalized patient under strict monitoring of 
intake and urinary output, the level of urinary frequency for 
medical purposes in the outpatient setting is generally based 
upon statements disclosed by the patient in interview by the 
health care provider.  Such statements, whether disclosed by the 
patient or a trusted witness, are presumed to be truthful in the 
medical profession, as it is this information upon which 
clinical decision-making and life-saving treatment [and indeed 
disability ratings] is based.  

Nevertheless, while the SAFPC made its decision based upon 
evidence presented to the FPEB, since the applicant had not yet 
been separated, any new evidence after the FPEB hearing, but 
prior to release from service [several months later] should have 
been taken into consideration; notwithstanding the temptation to 
distrust these newer findings.  The new information should have 
been considered current and relevant in the often referred to 
"snapshot" time of final military disposition.

However, the Medical Consultant cautions on using the effective 
date [the day after separation] of an individual's disability 
rating, as an interpretation of the severity of a given medical 
condition at the time of release from military service, as the 
DVA commonly makes its rating decisions often very remote 
[sometimes months or years] from the actual date of separation. 
Nevertheless, collective favorable consideration should be made 
of the probative value of the DVA rating decision [made within 
12 months of the applicant's date of separation] and the medical 
evidence presented prior to the applicant's release from 
service.  The applicant has presented reasonable evidence of an 
injustice in the application of a 20 percent disability rating 
for his urinary frequency.

The complete Medical Consultant evaluation, with attachments, is 
at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant noted that he did not have anything to add to his 
application.

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting 
corrective action.  Notwithstanding the recommendation of the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility, we agree with the 
recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the 
applicant has been the victim of either an error or an 
injustice.  As such, we conclude the applicant's records should 
be corrected to show that he was medically retired with a 
40 percent disability rating.  Therefore, we recommend the 
applicant’s record be corrected as indicated below.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to THE APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

	a.  On 28 May 12, he was found unfit to perform the duties 
of his office, rank, grade, or rating by reason of physical 
disability, incurred while he was entitled to receive basic pay; 
that the diagnosis in his case was Urinary Frequency, VASRD code 
7518, rated at 40 percent; that the degree of impairment was 
permanent; that the disability was not due to intentional 
misconduct or willful neglect; that the disability was not 
incurred during a period of unauthorized absence; and that the 
disability was not received in the line of duty as a direct 
result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war.

	b.  He was not disability separated, on 28 May 12, but, on 
29 May 12, his name was placed on the Permanent Disability 
Retired List.

	c.  His election of Survivor Benefit Plan option(s) will be 
corrected in accordance with the member’s expressed preferences 
and/or as otherwise provided for by law or the Code of Federal 
Regulations.

________________________________________________________________


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-03497 in Executive Session on 17 Jun 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jul 13, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 20 Aug 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
				 19 Nov 13, w/atchs
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 26 Nov 13.
    Exhibit F.  Electronic Mail, dated 25 Nov 13.




                                   Panel Chair





1

5