RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05770
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be changed to a medical retirement.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While on active duty it was discovered he had a heart problem.  
He desires his records to show that he is 100 percent disabled.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 May 1991, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
retired on 1 June 1991, in the grade of staff sergeant under the 
provisions of AFR 35-7 (Voluntary Retirement for Maximum Service 
Allowed by Air Force Policy).  He served 20 years and 10 days of 
active service.

The applicant provided a Department of Veterans Affairs Rating 
Decision dated 27 September 2012, stating that a clear and 
unmistakable error was found in the evaluation of atrial 
fibrillation, idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, moderately 
depressed left ventricular systolic function, and heart 
enlargement and a retroactive increased evaluation to 60 percent 
disabling was established from 10 April 2009.  An evaluation of 
100 percent was assigned from 24 July 2012.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The AFBCMR 
Medical Consultant states the applicant has not provided service 
medical or administrative documentation, e.g., Physical Profile 
Serial Reports or AF Forms 422 (Notification of Air Force 
Member’s Qualification Status), medical summaries, and 
performance reports, to demonstrate that he was unable to 
reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, and 
rating at the time of his retirement due to a cardiovascular 
ailment.

The military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to 
maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 
10, United States Code (U.S.C.), 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 “snap shot” in time of release from 
military service, and not based on future occurrences.  
Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.32, Physical 
Disability Evaluation [under revision and renumbering], 
Enclosure 3, Part 3, Standards For Determining Unfitness Due To 
Physical Disability Or Medical Disqualification, paragraph E3. 
P3.2.1, reads: “A Service member shall be considered unfit when 
the evidence establishes that the member, due to physical 
disability, is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or 
her office, grade, rank, or rating (hereafter called duties) to 
include duties during a remaining period of Reserve obligation.”

It could not be established that the applicant was unable to 
reasonably perform his military duties due to one or more 
medical conditions during his military service or at the time of 
his release from service.  Moreover, under paragraph E3.P3.3.3, 
Adequate Performance Until Referral, “If the evidence 
establishes that the service member adequately performed his or 
her duties until the time the service member was referred for 
physical evaluation, the member may be considered fit for duty 
even though medical evidence indicates questionable physical 
ability to continue to perform duty.”

Moreover, noting the applicant had achieved the maximum number 
of years of service allowed by Air Force policy, had he received 
a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) anytime during the 12 months 
preceding his date of retirement, a Physical Evaluation Board 
could [and likely would] have found him fit and returned him to 
duty to proceed with his length of service retirement, under the 
rule referred to as Presumption of Fitness.

The Medical Consultant concedes the an acute myocardial 
infarction or congestive heart failure are examples of 
conditions that could overcome the Presumption of Fitness; 
particularly if so severe as to cause symptoms of dyspnea or 
angina [during military service] after or during minimal 
exertion, e.g., 1 to 3 Metabolic Equivalents (METs).  Although 
since leaving military service, the applicant has met criteria 
for progressively higher disability ratings, there is no service 
evidence that any aspect of the aforementioned medical issue was 
of such severity at the “snap shot” in time of his military 
service that would warrant processing through the military DES; 
and even so, that indicates he would have overcome the 
Presumption of Fitness.  On the other hand, operating under a 
different set of laws, Title 38 U.S.C., with a different 
purpose, the Department of Veterans Affairs is authorized to 
offer compensation for any medical condition determined service 
incurred without regard to is proven impact upon member’s 
retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for release 
from service, or the length of time transpired since leaving 
military service. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic 
re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability 
rating [reduce or increase], as the level of impairment from a 
given medical condition may vary [improve or worsen] over the 
lifetime of the veteran.

The Medical Consultant opines the applicant has not met the 
burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired 
change of the record.

The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at 
Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 1 October 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office. 


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 an error or injustice.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
submission, we believe that relief is not warranted and the 
applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to 
believe otherwise.  His contentions are duly noted; however, the 
detailed comments provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant 
adequately address these concerns.  Therefore, we agree with the 
opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and 
adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has 
suffered either an error or an injustice.  In the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-05770 in Executive Session on 6 November 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 December 2014, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
	            16 June 2014.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 October 2014.