RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01951
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her disability rating be changed from 50 percent permanent
retirement to 100 percent due to unemployability.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She received a 50 percent disability rating from the Air Force.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated her at 100
percent and she believes the Air Force should increase their
percentage to 100 percent for her disability.
In support of the applicants appeal, she provides medical
documentation.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty on 10 March 1986.
On 8 May 2007, a MEB convened and referred the applicant's case
to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) based on a
diagnosis of major depressive disorder recurrent - moderate.
On 27 July 2007, the IPEB found her unfit for further military
service and recommended permanent retirement with a disability
rating of 50 percent for major depressive disorder, social and
industrial adaptability impairment: considerable. The narrative
summary noted the applicant reported two depressive episodes in
her lifetime lasting about two weeks each. The first occurred
in 1992 at Shepard following a pair of miscarriages and in
2005 after her return from Iraq.
The applicant agreed with the findings and recommended
disposition of the IPEB.
On 7 August 2007, the SAFPC directed that the applicant be
permanently retired under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1201.
Special Order ACD-01634 dated 8 August 2007, reflects the
applicant retired on 26 September 2007. She served 21 years
6 months and 16 days of active service for retirement.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. DPFD states the Department of
Defense and DVA disability evaluation systems operate under
separate laws. Under Title 10, USC, 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, it must be noted the USAF
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. It is the charge of the DVA to
pick up where the Air Force 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 applicant gave up her right to appeal for a formal hearing
at the FPEB and to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel
Council. The applicant did not exercise either one of these
appeal rights.
The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or
injustice occurred during the disability process.
The DPFD complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 5 August 2013, a copy of the 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. The
applicants contentions are duly noted; 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 or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
_
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-2013-01951 in Executive Session on 12 December 2013,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 April 2013 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Available Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 3 July 2013.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 August 2013.
2
3
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00259
The Board recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 20 percent. Further, it must be noted the Air Force 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. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 17 Feb 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02749
The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends amending the applicants record to reflect he was removed from the TDRL and permanently retired with a 50 percent disability rating due to PTSD, under VASRD Code 9411, effective 12 March 2012. While the Medical Consultant recommends granting the applicant the 50 percent rating, he does not believe this should be based upon the documentation from the DVA; as this evidence was the same old evidence utilized...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01985
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a 21-page brief from counsel, with attachments; copies of NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, issued in conjunction with her 21 Feb 11 transfer to the Retired Reserve; DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with her 23 Feb 11 release from active duty; Reserve Order EK-2605, retirement order, dated 16 Feb 11, and various other documents associated with her request. It...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05881
The 2003 surgery and disc herniation was not in the line of duty, so she is predisposed for back pain/disc herniation from a pre-existing non-military back injury. On 28 Aug 07, an Informal LOD determination concluded the applicants major depressive disorder related to her back pain was in the line of duty. On 29 Aug 07, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) awarded the applicant a 100 percent combined disability rating, based upon the loss of use of both lower extremities. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05881
The 2003 surgery and disc herniation was not in the line of duty, so she is predisposed for back pain/disc herniation from a pre-existing non-military back injury. On 28 Aug 07, an Informal LOD determination concluded the applicants major depressive disorder related to her back pain was in the line of duty. On 29 Aug 07, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) awarded the applicant a 100 percent combined disability rating, based upon the loss of use of both lower extremities. The...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00766
The Air Force 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. Following this reasoning one could conclude that assigning the rating as determined by the DVA based on evidence during the members active service would be proper, since it was based upon clinical assessments conducted before her actual date of discharge. c. All requested medical documentation should be supplied to the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03698
In view of the fact that her career was cut short due to malpractice, she should be credited with the 20 years of active service that she planned to perform and entitled to full concurrent receipt of her military disability retired pay and disability compensation from the DVA. The applicant contends she should be awarded a longevity retirement (as if she had served 20 years) since it was her intent to complete the required service for retirement from active duty. While she may have...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02024
On 15 Feb 02, IPEB reviewed the applicants case and recommended discharge under other than Chapter 61, 10 USC, noting the applicants medical condition existed prior to service (EPTS) and had not been permanently aggravated by military service. The applicant contends her medical conditions were incurred while on active duty and should be considered in line of duty based on the service connection decision by the DVA. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00072
Regarding the applicants request that she be given a 20 year active duty retirement with full retirement benefits, A1K states that her medical case which included the applicable documentation that ultimately led to a finding of ILOD was appropriately reviewed and a determination was made on that case by the PEB. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant certainly...