Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01378
Original file (BC 2014 01378.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 
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 member’s 
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 applicant’s 
DVA disability rating computation from 2009.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s 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 applicant’s 
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.  Applicant’s 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



Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-00094

    Original file (PD-2013-00094.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (PD2011-00124.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801731

    Original file (9801731.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2005-02220.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2005-00236.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2002-00939.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    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 | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-01015

    Original file (PD2012-01015.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (PD2011-00509.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC 2012 01051.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...