RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04738 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His narrative reason for separation be corrected to reflect he was discharged as a result of “Gulf War Syndrome” or at least “unknown-Brain Vasculitis/Gastrointestinal/lung disease accompanied by fibromyalgia and an unknown autoimmune disease.” 2. His records be corrected to show that he was retired for physical disabilities and provided a 100 percent combined compensable disability rating rather than medically discharged with severance pay. _________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His exposure to toxins caused multiple disabling symptoms. He suffered from many health issues after the exposure, including lung and stomach problems. He was not properly treated after he had surgery to remove internal organs. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and Social Security Administration (SSA) rated him 100 percent disabled. His rights were violated by the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when he was not allowed to gather medical documentation to support his case. In support of the appeal, the applicant submits of a personal statement and a list of facilities he visited for his illness. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 Aug 92 and was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 3 Oct 06, to determine whether he should be continued on active duty due to the diagnosis of asthma and the MEB referred him to the Informal Physical Evaluatio Board (IPEB). On 6 Dec 06, an IPEB convened and determined the applicant was unfit for continued active duty service and recommended he be discharged with severance pay and a compensable rating of ten percent for diagnoses of chest pain with exertion, suspicious for exercised-induced bronchospasm, which improved with medications. On 11 Dec 06, the applicant non-concurred and requested a formal hearing with counsel. On 31 Aug 07, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) reviewed the case file and recommended a combined compensable disability rating of 20 percent. The FPEB noted the applicant was diagnosed with mild persistent asthma, requiring only pre-exercise use of Albuterol. The applicant rebutted the findings of the FPEB to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) and requested he be retired with a combined compensable disability rating of 50 percent for his asthma and chronic knee and back pain. The SAFPC concurred with the disposition and recommendation by the IPEB and FPEB and directed the applicant be discharged with severance pay and a combined compensable disability rating of 20 percent. On 28 Dec 07, the applicant was separated for physical disability with severance pay and a combined compensable disability rating of 20 percent. He was credited with 4 years and 13 days of total active service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or the rating applied at the time of the boards. As background, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Disability Evaluation Systems operate under separate laws. 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 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 United States Air Force Disability Boards must rate disabilities based on the member's condition at the time of the 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 the condition. This often results in different ratings by the two agencies. The complete AFPC/DPSD 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 6 May 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its 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. 4. The applicant's 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-2010-04738 in Executive Session on 7 Sep 11 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated, 19 Apr 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated, 6 May 11.