RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04502
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His medical separation be changed to a medical retirement.
2. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty; Block 14, Military Education, be amended to show
Basic Military Training (BMT) Aug 2000. (Administratively
Corrected)
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his discharge, he received a 10 percent
disability rating. Immediately thereafter the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated him at 90 percent.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his
DD Form 214, NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of
Service; and DVA rating decision.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 29 Oct 02, the applicant entered active duty service.
On 28 Mar 13, he was honorably discharged with a narrative
reason for separation of Disability, Severance Pay, Noncombat
(Enhanced).
He served 10 years and 5 months on active duty.
In a letter dated 19 Dec 13, AFPC/DPSIT informed the applicant
that they validated the requested change to his BMT completion
date and the correction will be made to his DD Form 214.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPFD recommends denial of the applicants request to have
his Discharge With Severance Pay (DWSP) changed to a permanent
retirement based on the 90 percent combined disability rating he
received from the DVA.
On 21 Aug 12, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB)
reviewed his case for lumbago, status post artificial disc
surgery without residuals. In Accordance With (IAW) the
Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) effective Nov 07,
the code sheet from the DVA was used in applying the disability
rating. The DVA proposed a 10 percent rating for the
applicants lumbago. Therefore, the IPEB recommended DWSP with
a disability rating of 10 percent. On 30 Aug 12, he concurred
with the recommended findings. The applicant did not use his
two appeal rights to have his case reviewed by the Formal
Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) or by the Secretary of the Air
Force Personnel Council.
As background, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the DVA
disability evaluations systems operate under separate laws.
Under Title 10, U.S.C. 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 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, the Air Force disability
boards must rate disabilities based on the members condition at
the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of the condition
at the time. It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the
military service, must by law, leave off. Under Title 38,
U.S.C. 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.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 20 Jun 14, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit
D). As of this date, this office has not received a response.
________________________________________________________________
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. After
carefully reviewing this application, we agree with the opinion
and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis
for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his burden
that he has suffered from an error or injustice. Therefore,
aside from the administrative correction to his DD Form 214 to
change his BMT completion date, we find no basis to recommend
granting any of 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-2013-04502 in Executive Session on 7 Aug 14, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 19 Dec 13.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 11 Jan 14
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 14.
Panel Chair
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 02246
On 16 Jan 98, he was scheduled for his first TDRL re-evaluation and the IPEB reviewed the medical information on 2 Feb 98 and recommended the applicant be removed from TDRL and DWSP with a 10 percent disability rating. Further, it must be 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. A complete copy of the Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02764
On 4 Aug 11, the applicant waived his right to a formal hearing and requested the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) decide his case based on the medical records alone. According to Special Order ACD-93289 dated 1 Sep 11, effective 21 Sep 11, the applicant was removed from the TDRL and discharged in the grade of SSgt by reason of physical disability with entitlement to disability severance pay. When a member is removed from TDRL, a new DD Form 214 is not issued as the time spent on...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02908
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating the preponderance of evidence reflects there was no error or an injustice in the disability process. Further, it must be noted the USAF disability boards must rate disabilities based on the members condition at the time of evaluation; in...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05615
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial of the applicants request to change his 2Q RE code indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice during the disability process. The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) reviewed the applicants medical board for diagnoses of...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00978
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00978 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation of Disability, Existed Prior to Service (EPTS), Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) be changed to a service connected disability. The IPEB found the applicant unfit and recommended discharge noting the applicants medical condition, EPTS and had not been permanently aggravated...
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...
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 | 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 | 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.