Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00280
Original file (BC-2013-00280.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00280

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he was medically discharged. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was wrongfully discharged for drug rehabilitation failure.  
He should have been medically discharged.  The Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) decision letter indicates the Air Force 
was aware of his medical condition in Dec 79.  His mitral valve 
prolapse was diagnosed in Apr 80.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 Nov 79, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

On 19 Aug 83, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for failure in the 
Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Program.  The specific reason for the 
discharge action was he tested positive Tetrahydrocannabinol 
(THC) during a urinalysis test while in the rehabilitation 
program.  The commander cited the following derogatory 
information: three Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for failing to 
stop on his shuttle bus route, being late for duty, two positive 
urinalysis for marijuana; six records of Individual Counseling 
for reporting late for duty, speeding on the flight line, 
leaving his bus in an unserviceable condition, and an overdue 
Deferred Payment Plan (DPP) account notice. 

After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the action and elected to submit a statement in his 
own behalf.

The case was found legally sufficient and, on 23 Nov 83, the 
applicant was furnished a general discharge and was credited 
with 4 years and 18 days of active service.

On 18 Oct 85, the applicant was notified by the Chief, 
Separations Division, that the urinalysis specimen he provided 
during the period of Apr 82 to Oct 83, which tested positive for 
THC, did not meet the new forensic criteria for confirmation and 
have been set aside.  He was further advised that based on the 
other grounds listed in his discharge action that his discharge 
and service characterization would still stand. 

On 30 Mar 87, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) considered and 
denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge 
and narrative reason for separation and forwarded his request to 
the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for 
consideration regarding upgrading his RE code.  SAFPC considered 
and denied the applicant’s RE code request noting the reasons 
for the general discharge and RE code were well documented in 
his military records and that he did not provide sufficient 
post-service documentation that would serve to overcome the 
factors leading to his discharge.

On 29 Jun 87, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s 
request for an upgrade to his discharge and change in RE code. 

On 26 Jan 12, according to documentation provided by the 
applicant, the DVA awarded him service connection for his 
coronary artery disease with a 100 percent disability rating, 
effective 25 Aug 11.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there 
is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The applicant’s 
records indicate he entered military service with a history of a 
heart murmur since childhood.  During his military service, the 
applicant was seen and treated for a variety of medical 
conditions to include heart murmur and chest pains.  He was 
subsequently diagnosed with mild mitral valve prolapse and 
endocarditis.  However, there is no documentation in the 
applicant’s records showing his heart condition prevented him 
from performing his assigned duties, or that he had any other 
cardiovascular or pulmonary ailment that warranted consideration 
by an Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or rendered him non-
worldwide qualified.  The applicant received a medical profile 
for an ankle injury he incurred in Jan 81.  Mental Health 
Service issued a profile identifying the applicant as an THC 
experimenter.  

The fact that the DVA has established a nexus between the 
applicant's coronary artery disease and his EPTS heart murmur is 
within its authority, but does not retroactively establish 
unfitness at the time of military service.  The DVA operates 
under a different set of laws and is authorized to offer 
compensation for any medical condition with a 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.  The DVA 
compensation system was written to allow awarding compensation 
ratings for conditions that were not considered unfitting for 
military service at the time of release from military service.  
This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for 
release from military service and yet sometime thereafter 
receive compensation ratings from the DVA for service-connected, 
but militarily non-unfitting conditions.  The DVA is also 
empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of 
adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as 
the level of impairment from a given service connected medical 
condition may vary (improve or worsen, affecting future 
employability) over the lifetime of the veteran. 

Even if there was evidence to indicate the applicant should have 
been found unfit by an MEB, the applicant would have been 
confronted with a "dual-action" review of his case by the SAF 
Personnel Council (SAFPC), making him concurrently the subject 
of an approved involuntary separation and a medical separation. 
In such cases, the SAFPC would consider any mitigating or 
extenuating circumstances and any possible causal relationship 
between the applicant's administrative infractions and his 
medical condition in deciding upon the appropriate reason for 
release from military service.  Based on a thorough review of 
the evidence of record, SAFPC would have executed the approved 
administrative discharge after finding no causal or mitigating 
relationship between the administrative infractions and the 
medical condition.  

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant on 31 Jul 13, for review and comment 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.  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 AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice.  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 issue(s) 
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 material 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-2013-00280 in Executive Session on 7 Oct 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 12, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 
	               dated 24 Jul 13.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Jul 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00280

    Original file (BC 2013 00280.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He should have been medically discharged. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The DVA compensation system was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not considered unfitting for military service at the time of release from military service.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00046

    Original file (BC-2006-00046.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The arrest report revealed a blood pressure reading of 200/140 at the time of the arrest. Review of the service medical records revealed that the applicant was placed in an alcohol rehabilitation program 10 Nov 81. The applicant's alcohol use during the last two years of service is well documented in the service medical records from the Alcoholism Rehabilitation Center at Sheppard AFB, in addition to reports from his commander of two civilian arrests for alcohol abuse, one for public...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00066

    Original file (PD2010-00066.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. In the matter of the right arm and leg weakness conditions, migraine headache condition, vascular dementia and mood disorder condition, the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend a finding of unfit for additional rating at separation. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04338

    Original file (BC-2012-04338.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, while the Medical Consultant does find error in the failure to conduct the applicant's MEB and referral to a Physical Evaluation Board, the evidence does not support the final outcome of a medical retirement. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant 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 25 February 2013 for review...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803224

    Original file (9803224.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Effective Apr 95, the applicant received a 30% disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his “aortic insufficiency/stenosis with mitral valve prolapse.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that as early as 1986, the applicant was diagnosed with valvular heart disease, most likely secondary to rheumatic fever, the disease affecting the aortic as...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00422

    Original file (PD2012-00422.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the s/p mitral ring repair with post-operative atrial fibrillation on chronic anticoagulation and anti- arrhythmic therapy as unfitting and rated it 0%, with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). (2) is limited to those conditions which were determined by the PEB to be specifically unfitting for continued military service; or, when requested by the CI, those condition(s) “identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB.”...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05686

    Original file (BC 2013 05686.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 Jun 09, an informal physical evaluation board (IPEB) determined the applicant’s coronary heart disease was unfitting for continued military service and recommended he be discharged with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent. The DVA Schedule for Rating disabilities indicates the applicant’s coronary artery disease rating fell at or below the criteria for a 10 percent disability rating; as he was also rated by the DVA. While the Board acknowledges the comment by the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01818

    Original file (BC-2008-01818.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPD states the applicant requested his coronary artery bypass be considered combat related. For his coronary artery bypass to qualify for CRSC, it must be either secondary to diabetes mellitus contracted by exposure to AO herbicides or presumptive to Prisoner of War (POW) internment, and this must be so stated in the applicable DVA Rating Decision. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The applicant be notified that the evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | bc-2011-04080

    Original file (bc-2011-04080.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In view of the DVA rating decisions and the severity of her condition, the disability rating awarded by the Air Force should have been higher and she should have been retired by reason of physical disability. 60 percent – Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits to a diabetic care provider, plus complications that would not be compensable if...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-01184A

    Original file (BC-2001-01184A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ______________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends consideration for rating her neurocardiogenic syncope based on the severity of the condition at the time of her discharge. The service medical record finds no evidence of these symptoms while on active duty. In this regard, we note that the BCMR Medical Consultant believes that had her diagnosis of neorocardiogenic syncope been made definitively while on...