Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00804
Original file (BC 2014 00804.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00804

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he was retired for disability 
rather than discharged.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been awarded a disability rating to qualify for 
retirement instead of being discharged.  His medical conditions 
were caused/aggravated by his military service.  He had no 
issues for over 14 years until pre-deployment vaccinations were 
administered while attending basic military training and several 
training/pre-deployment exercises.  This is evidenced by the 
fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has resolved 
doubt in his favor and issued him a disability rating for these 
conditions.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
21 Nov 06 and served on active duty until 28 Dec 12, when he was 
discharged for Disability that Existed Prior to Service (EPTS).  
He was credited with six years, one month, and eight days of 
total active service. 

According to the documentation submitted by the applicant, on 
28 Mar 13, the DVA issued him the following service connected 
disability ratings:

a.  Seizure disorder – 40 percent.

	    b.  Intermittent right tinnitus – 10 percent

	    c.  Retention cysts, left maxillary sinus – 10 percent.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices 
of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C 
and D.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  Under Title 10, United States Code, 
Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a member’s 
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 necessarily unfitting for continued military 
service.  Further, it must be noted the USAF disability boards 
must rate disabilities based on the member’s condition at the 
time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at 
the time.  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.  The 
applicant submitted documents from the DVA that they reversed 
their decision on the seizures being EPTS.  However, from the 
applicant’s medical board narrative, it was noted that his 
seizures began when he was 17 years of age.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s 
petition to change his status from “Discharged to retired for 
medical reasons,” indicating there is no evidence of an error or 
an injustice.  The applicant’s clinical history reflects that he 
experienced seizures before entering military service; and that 
the seizure(s) he experienced after entering military service 
were “similar to what happened” when he was a teenager.  Absent 
a de novo cause of the applicant’s seizures since entering 
military service, e.g., head trauma, neoplastic disease, stroke, 
residuals of an post-inflammatory process, or other 
scientifically proven service-related cause, the Medical 
Consultant concurs with the conclusions reached by the Military 
Department Medical Evaluation Board and the Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board.  The fact that the applicant did not disclose 
a history of seizures at the time he completed his enlistment 
health documents, which he has disclosed years later, borders on 
fraudulent service entry; and, as a minimum, would require a 
waiver to enter military service, in which case the government 
would not have been obligated to process as a compensable 
disorder once it precluded retention.

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 27 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  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 opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt 
their 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.


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-2014-00804 in Executive Session on 18 Dec 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	



The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00804 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 13 Mar 14.
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFBCMR, Medical Consultant, dated 
25 Sep 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00105

    Original file (BC-2013-00105.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 16 Jun 10, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) reviewed the case file and medical records and also recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent for diagnosis of POTS using VASRD code 8299-8210. Her condition has not changed in severity, the DVA made their rating by correctly applying the laws for analogous ratings. In this respect, the applicant is requesting that her medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement based on the 80 percent...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00978

    Original file (BC 2014 00978.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 applicant’s medical condition, EPTS and had not been permanently aggravated...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02246

    Original file (BC 2014 02246.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 member’s condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a “snapshot” of their condition at that time. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03497

    Original file (BC 2013 03497.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    They recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent. The applicant has presented reasonable evidence of an injustice in the application of a 20 percent disability rating for his urinary frequency. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to THE APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01536

    Original file (BC 2014 01536 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, even when considering possible overlapping symptoms of PTSD, Panic Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder, military officials determined that it was his co-morbid Personality Disorder that presented the greatest obstacle to his treatment and retention and, thus, recommended the administrative discharge. The proposed treatment for his anxiety disorder in 1985 was appropriate regardless of the differential diagnosis (e.g., PTSD vs. Panic Disorder). The applicant is advised that a diagnosis...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01259

    Original file (BC 2014 01259 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the applicant’s request to supplant her discharge with a medical retirement. A 2 Nov 04 MEB finding recommended the applicant be returned to duty, and that previous profile restrictions be renewed with a new expiration date of 23 Nov 06. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 00766

    Original file (BC 2014 00766.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 member’s 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 02860

    Original file (BC 2013 02860.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Further, it must be noted the United States 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 the time. The Medical Consultant concurs with the recommendation of the IPEB for a discharge with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating for chronic neck pain as the only condition found to be unfitting for continued military service at the time of separation. The complete BCMR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04255

    Original file (BC-2012-04255.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04255 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His medical discharge with severance pay be changed to a medical retirement. Should the Board find that PTSD should have been found unfitting at the time of the 1998 medical board, they can provide the appropriate disability rating. The evidence of...