AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01248 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

IN THE MATTER OF:   
 
     
 
 
 
     
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:  
 
His  AFMPC  Form  134,  Retirement  Order,  block  12,  Compensable 
Percentage  of  Physical  Disability,  be  changed  from  60  to  80 
percent. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The  disability  rating  he  received  from  the  Air  Force  should  be 
increased since the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) awarded 
him  a  combined  rating  of  80  percent  for  the  service-connected 
disability  of  Ankylosing  Spondylitis  and  associated  compression 
fractures of T-11/T-12. 
 
It  is  unjust  that  he  is  denied  compensation  for  this  condition 
that  was  caused  by  the  Air  Force.    His  symptoms  did  not  begin 
overnight;  they  are  an  enduring  legacy  from  the  trauma  that 
began in 1967 and still persists today.   
 
His ongoing neurogenic bladder condition arose from nerve trauma 
induced  by  compression  fractures  to  T-11/T-12  which  was  caused 
by  his  20-G  force  aircraft  ejection  on  13 September  1967.  
Neurogenic bladder was not part of his medical record and he was 
not  examined  nor  tested  for  it  when  he  medically  retired  from 
the Air Force. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  a  former  member  of  the  Regular  Air  Force  who 
began  his  service  on  5  February  1968.    On  18  March  1976,  a 
Medical  Evaluation  Board  referred  the  applicant  to  an  Informal 
Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)  based  on  the  diagnosis  of 
Ankylosing  Spondylitis  associated  with  compression  fractures  of 
T11  and  T12  due  to  trauma.    The  IPEB  found  this  condition  was 
not unfitting and returned him to duty.  He did not agree with 
the findings and recommendations and requested a formal hearing. 
 
On  28  April  1976,  a  Formal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (FPEB) 
reviewed the case and found the applicant’s condition would not 
change  by  a  ratable  percent  within  the  next  five  years.    They 

recommended he be permanently retired with a compensable rating 
of  60  percent.    The  FPEB  also  found  the  disability  was  the 
direct  result  of  armed  conflict  or  was  caused  by  an 
instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of duty during a 
period  of  war.    The  applicant  was  medically  retired  on  26  May 
1976. 
 
On 5 July 2011, the DVA notified the applicant that his Notice 
Of  Disagreement  dated  6  October  2009  was  considered  and  his 
neurogenic  bladder  was  rated  40  percent  effective  10 September 
2008.  The DVA noted there was no mention of urinary complaints 
during  his  medical  evaluation  physical  in  1975.    The  examiner 
also  noted  there  was  ongoing  urinary  frequency  complaints  per 
his reported history, but no continuity of care until 2000.  The 
applicant also presented medical evidence to the DVA dated 6 May 
2009 along with medical notes from 2002 identifying his problems 
with  neurogenic  bladder  which  was  caused  by  the  plane  crash  in 
the  1970’s  while  on  active  duty.    The  examining  doctor  opined 
that the injury had initiated and has most certainly caused his 
neurogenic  bladder.    Based  on  that  evidence,  the  DVA  found  the 
neurogenic  bladder  was  related  to  his  service-connected 
disability of Ankylosing Spondylitis associated with compression 
fractures T11 and T12. 
 
Title  10  U.S.C  states,  Military  Departments,  can  by  law  only 
offer  compensation  for  illnesses,  injuries  or  diseases  that 
caused  or  contributed  to  early  termination,  and  then,  only  to 
the  degree  of  impairment  present  at  the  snap  shot  in  time  of 
final  military  disposition.    The  DVA,  however,  operates  under 
Title 38 and is authorized to offer compensation for any medical 
condition with nexus to military service, without regard to its 
demonstrated  or  proven  impact  upon  a  service  member’s 
retainability, fitness to serve, or narrative reason for release 
from military service.  Therefore, service members may be found 
fit  for  release  from  military  service  for  one  reason  and  yet 
receive compensation ratings from the DVA for service-connected, 
but  not  military  unfitting  conditions  at  the  time  of  release 
from military service.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  an  error  or  injustice.    Evidence 
has  not  been  provided  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  that  the 
applicant’s disability processing and the rating he received at 
final disposition were improper.  The applicant alleges that his 
ongoing neurogenic bladder condition was not part of his medical 
record  and  he  was  not  examined  nor  tested  for  it  when  he  was 
medically retired from the Air Force; and, as a consequence, was 

 2

denied compensation for this condition.  The applicant points to 
the  disability  assessments  and  rating  he  received  from  the  DVA 
to  support  his  claim.    In  this  regard,  we  are  constrained  to 
note that by law, the DVA rates service-connected conditions on 
the  basis  of  social  and  industrial  adaptability  while  the 
services  assign  ratings  based  on  the  degree  of  impairment  for 
performance  of  duties.    The  evidence  of  record  appears  to 
indicate that the applicant was afforded due process through the 
disability  evaluation  system.    The  applicant  has  provided  no 
evidence  that  would  lead  us  to  believe  the  contrary  was  the 
case.  Therefore, 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  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 BCMR Docket Number 
BC-2012-01248 in Executive Session on 10 January 2013, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 14 Jul 11, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
 
 
 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

Panel Chair 

 
 

 
 

 3