RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02908
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge status be changed from Discharged for Disability
with Severance Pay (DWSP) to medically retired.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After reviewing his records, and statements from his surgeon, he
believes a medical retirement is more appropriate because of an
unsuccessful heart surgery. He believes this information may have
been overlooked at the time of his discharge and he did not know
he had the ability to appeal the decision of the Air Force. He
further contends he receives 60% disability from the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA), calculated at 20% Carpal Tunnel, 10%
Tinnitus, 10% Gastroesophageal Reflux, and 30% Atrial
Fibrillation.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 25 July 96, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 28 Jun 04, his commander recommended he not be retained on
active duty due to the severity of his heart condition.
On 12 Jul 04, the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) recommended the
applicant be continued on active duty and his case be referred to
the Information Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).
On 23 Jul 04, the IPEB found him unfit to discharge his duties,
and recommended he be discharged with severance pay, with a
disability rating of 10%.
On 4 Aug 04, he received notification of his IPEB findings and
recommended disposition. He acknowledged the findings the same
day, indicating he agreed with the disposition, and waived his
right to a formal PEB hearing.
On 9 Sep 04, the applicant received an honorable discharge with
narrative reason for separation as Disability, Severance Pay and
was credited with 8 years, 1 month and 15 days of active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating the preponderance of
evidence reflects there was no error or an injustice in the
disability process. It should be noted that the members
application states the DVA has awarded him a combined disability
rating of 60% for carpal tunnel (right hand), tinnitus,
gastroesophageal reflux and atrial fibrillation. The applicant
does not provide any documentation from the DVA for review. The
applicant was not boarded for carpal tunnel, tinnitus or
gastroesophageal reflux.
The Department of Defense (DoD) and the DVA disability evaluation
systems operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, USC, PEBs
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 necessarily 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 AF
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.
The complete AFPC/DPFD 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 4 Nov 14 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 applicants complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; 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 the
applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
4. The applicants 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 issues 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-2014-02908 in Executive Session on 21 May 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 13 Aug 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 14.
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00066
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 02860
Further, it must be noted the United States Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the members 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 | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00425
SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty member, SSG/E-7 (96B, Intelligence Analyst), medically separated for a cervical condition. My condition has not gotten better nor will it. No other conditions were service connected with a compensable rating by the VA within 12 months of separation or contended by the CI.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00221
The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), found unfit for continued military service, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. At the time she separated from service DoDI 1332.39 was in effect and it stated that response to therapy was to be considered in all cases. c. She was not discharged on 4 August 2005 with entitlement to disability severance...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03998
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is included at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. At no time during the applicants disability processing was he boarded for or given a disability rating for OSA. The OSA should have been...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00250
The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for continued Naval service, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Naval and Department of Defense regulations. The CI had a previous Limited Duty (LIMDU) Board in October 2001 after a seven year history of low back pain. Therefore the CI’s back condition is rated using the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00896
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY SEPARATION DATE: 20030512 NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE NUMBER: PD1200896 BOARD DATE: 20130123 SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty, SPC/E-4, (92A/Automated Logistical Specialist), medically separated for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) with chest pain syndrome. The MEB forwarded no other conditions for Physical...
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied (Exhibit C). Prior to that date, an evaluation of 30% was assigned for severe, frequent attacks. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, I believe the applicant’s medical condition at the time of his retirement warrants a higher disability rating.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01614
In her request for an increase in her Air Force disability rating, she submits a DVA rating decision as evidence of an Air Force error. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states her disability was more severe than the Air Force found while she was on active duty. Her condition was not rated by the DVA for a condition that deteriorated after discharge but...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00624
It was the opinion of the MEB that the CI, because of his physical limitations, would be unable to fulfill his duties as an active duty Marine and his case was referred to the PEB for final disposition. The VA C&P examination on 8 April 2009, one month after separation, noted that he was taking medication with no episodes of atrial fibrillation since separation; however, he had not performed any heavy exertional activities due to the order from his Cardiologists to not exercise due to the...