RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01378
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be granted a medical retirement.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was discharged without the option of a medical retirement and
was informed that a service member with over 10 years of service
is eligible for a medical retirement or to cross-train in order
to gain service for retirement.
The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was seen by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and
his case was referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board
(IPEB) with a diagnosis of Bilateral Knee Pain. On
7 September 2006, the IPEB found him unfit for further military
service and recommended discharge with severance pay with a
disability rating of 20 percent.
Special Order PS-006, dated 14 October 2006 reflects the
applicant was honorably discharged from the Air National Guard
effective 23 October 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-3209,
Disability, Severance Pay. The applicant served 12 years,
4 months and 28 days total service for pay.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPFDD recommends denial. DPFDD states the documentation
provided by the applicant to support his claim is inadequate to
allow a comprehensive review by this office. In the absence of
a copy of the Air Force Form 356 and other medical board
documents it is impossible to fully evaluate the applicant's
claim.
The DPFDD complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical
Consultant states it was only the applicants bilateral lower
extremity compartment syndrome that prevented him from
reasonably performing his military duties.
Although the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has utilized a
different VASRD code to properly characterize the applicants
medical problem, the assigned disability ratings are the same as
assigned by the Military Department. Additionally, the Medical
Consultant acknowledges that the applicant has received
additional disability ratings for sinusitis and lumbosacral
strain. However, neither of these conditions were shown to be
individually unfitting or the cause for career termination.
Moreover, the Consultant acknowledged that the applicant was
assigned service connection and a disability rating for
bilateral peripheral neuropathy. However, although the
applicant reported complaints of numbness and tingling of the
lower extremities during an examination in 2009 [which was
attributed to his compartment syndrome], the evidence does not
demonstrate that these symptoms were either present or were
individually unfitting at the time of discharge. Unlike
individuals on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL),
these new symptoms cannot be included in the disability rating
determination, even though believed to be secondary to the
original physical insults.
The applicant is advised that, operating under a different set
of laws, Title 38, U.S.C.), the DVA is authorized to offer
compensation for any medical condition determined service
incurred, without regard to [and independent of] its
demonstrated or proven impact upon a service members
retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for
separation, or the intervening period since the date of
separation. With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs
the DVA compensation system, was written to allow awarding
compensation ratings for conditions that were not individually
unfitting during military service or at the time of separation.
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] over
the life time of the veteran, as noted with the subsequent
inclusion of bilateral peripheral neuropathy in the applicants
DVA disability rating computation from 2009.
The AFBCMR Medical Consultants complete evaluation is at
Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 12 November 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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. After a
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants
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 Air Force Office of primary
responsibility and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their
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.
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-2014-01378 in Executive Session on 5 February 2015,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 March 2014, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Available Master Personnel Record.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 12 August 2014.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
29 October 2014.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 November 2014.
4
3
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-00094
No other conditions were identified by the MEB.The IPEB adjudicated “chronic or exertional compartmental syndrome in the bilateral lower legs status post (s/p)bilateral fasciotomies of the anterior and lateral compartments” as unfitting, with a combined rating of 20% (10% for each leg w/the bilateral factor) with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI appealed to the Formal PEB; however, he withdrew his appeal and was medically separated. The...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00124
The NARSUM examiner noted a normal gait, no swelling or muscle atrophy, normal distal pulses and normal strength of both extremities. The neurologist performing the electrodiagnostic testing recorded his examination showed the CI was “without weakness.” Under these codes, minimal weakness warrants a 0% rating, moderate 10%, providing no benefit to the CI. In the matter of the left and right leg compartment syndrome conditions and IAW VASRD §4.124a, the Board unanimously recommends no...
conditions AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating the applicant has not submitted any material or documentation to show he was improperly rated at the time of his removal from the TDRL and permanent retirement by reason of physical disability. 3 AFBCMR 96-01731 At the time of his disability processing, applicant's degenerative polyneuropathy was associated with his cervical spondylosis, but not separately...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02220
Additional relevant facts pertinent to the applicant’s application are found in the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the applicant be rated an additional 10 percent for the condition of his right leg resulting in an overall combined rating of 30 percent, qualifying him for permanent disability retirement. The existence of bilateral unfitting leg...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00236
On 2 May 03, the Air Force PEB recommended that she be discharged with severance pay, based on a diagnosis of right ulnar neuropathy, with a compensable disability rating of 10 percent. At the time of her TDRL reevaluation she reported the stimulator did not relieve her pain. The Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00939
The Medical Consultant noted that shortly following his discharge from the Air Force, the applicant separated from his wife and applied to the DVA for disability compensation for his various medical problems. He sleeps a lot during the day since he is not able to sleep well during the night and claimed that he has severe sleep apnea. He now requests that he be medically retired from the Air Force as of the date of his separation on 26 Jul 99, contending that he was suffering from the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | bc-2011-04080
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 | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-01015
The PEB adjudicated “History of compartment syndrome” as Category I (unfitting) with “left lower extremity pain” and “left superficial peroneal pain” deemed as related Category I diagnoses; combined disability was rated as 20%. History of Compartment Syndrome Condition. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: UNFITTING CONDITION History of Compartment Syndrome VASRD...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00509
An IPEB dated 7 April 2008 adjudicated “bilateral lower leg pain with CS as unfitting rated 21% (including bilateral factor) with application of the DoDI 1332.39 and VASRD. The left leg examination was normal and without pain. The Board determined therefore that none of the stated conditions were subject to service disability rating.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 01051
He requested a separate and unfitting condition of 30 percent for right side radiculopathy VASRD 8516. On 11 Mar 10, the FPEB determined that based on a limited ROM and right radicular pain, the FPEB rated his spinal fusion at 20 percent and considered his chronic left shoulder pain to also be unfitting and best rated at 10 percent. On 11 Mar 10, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board, found the applicant unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade, or rating by reason of physical...