RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03304 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive disability compensation for her service connected disability. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She should have been discharged via a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and should have received disability compensation given the severity of her medical conditions. Her discharge was determined medically disqualified by the Air National Guard (ANG) Surgeon General’s office. She was denied service connection for a cervical disk injury and emotional stress. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of medical evaluations and reports, a certified mail receipt to the 165th ANG, his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Statement of Case, and a Notice of Disagreement to the DVA. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on the applicant’s submission and the available records, she was released from the ANG on 15 Feb 2001 due to a medical disqualification. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and H. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/SGPF is unable to make a recommendation concerning the applicant’s request to undergo Disability Evaluation System (DES) processing. NGB/SGPF recommends no action be taken unless the applicant can provide documentation clearly showing her medical conditions were deemed service connected and severe enough to warrant DES processing. SGPF states the applicant has failed to provide the required documentation demonstrating her medical conditions were service connected. In order to establish service connection for a medical condition, military orders would need to be provided that coincide with medical documentation outlining the extent and severity of her medical conditions. In addition, NGB/SG and NGB/A1 have no record of a line of duty determination, request for disability consideration, or any other entitlement request submitted on her behalf. The complete SGPF evaluation is at Exhibit B. NGB/A1PS concurs with the SGPF’s advisory and therefore recommends no action be taken unless the applicant can provide documentation showing her medical conditions were deemed service connected and severe enough to warrant DES processing The complete A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states she respects the advisory opinions, however, she has no further documentation and stressed her concerns to SGPF that she has no other source to obtain evidence. In an email to SGPF, she states she was assigned to the 165th Georgia ANG Unit in Logistics Traffic Management. She did not miss a drill duty in the entire three years of her term. On the day of her accident she worked with another airman and asserts they both completed an order from the supply unit to ship a container weighing 118 pounds. They both lifted the container onto a dolly. While lifting the container from underneath she injured her cervical disk. At the time of her injury, she was not aware of the seriousness and continued to work her regular drill weekends as well as her technician civil service job until the pain became severe. She went to her private doctor and not the military doctors. Her doctor scheduled her for an X-ray and an MRI found her C3, and C4 disks were injured. Since she was a new airman, she was not aware of the procedures concerning military orders or undergoing DES processing. She did not receive any instructions or assistance. Her military records were with the 156th (sic) ANG and may be destroyed by now. She provided the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) medical documents and X-rays. Before she submitted a claim with the DVA, the ANG directed her to apply for workman’s compensation benefits since she was also a civil service employee. Her request was denied because her injury occurred during drill weekend duty. She is confused because her case is subject to both civil service and military rules. She did not know who to contact for correct procedures concerning her injury. She is not sure what other evidence is required to support her case. She has forwarded all the medical documents to the DVA. She has written letters to the 165th ANG requesting a copy of the form she used to ship the container that caused her injury. The form confirms the date, time, weight, and other pertinent information which would help support her claim. SMSgt H has all the documents from her military records. Her medical condition is service connected and severe enough because the 165th released her. She has not received any support from them and asked SGPF to help her and grant DES processing. She understands how paperwork can sometimes be mishandled and errors occur. If her request is denied, she will accept the decision with honor. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant regrettably recommends denial of the applicant's petition to change the record to reflect she was medically discharged and offered disability compensation via a PEB. The Medical Consultant states he is aware that musculoskeletal injuries, particularly muscular strains, may not maximally manifest clinically until one or more days after the initial insult. In the case under review, the applicant alleges she injured herself during a drill weekend in Feb 2000. One such recollection places the sentinel occurrence on or about 4 Feb 2000 and in another report, occurring on or about 12 Feb 2000. The fact the applicant obtained an MRI scan in the month (March 2000) following the month of her military drill is an indication that she may have indeed been experiencing cervical pain. However, this report is insufficient to establish a causal relationship with military service; absent evidence of an in a line of duty determination, or as a minimum, evidence of timely evaluation or reporting of the injury to military officials. The medical assessment of 17 Feb 2000 would be helpful in this instance, but is also not supplied. Although the applicant appears to have been involved in physical therapy in Apr 2000, two months following the alleged injury, this is again insufficient to establish a connection with military service. Moreover, the applicant has not supplied the medical disqualification notice for an assessment of the effective date of her disqualification nor her duty status at the time her condition was deemed disqualifying. It should be noted the applicant's radiographic studies (Mar 2000 and Oct 2000) failed, at the time, to demonstrate a surgically correctable or other significant permanent anatomic defect that can be attributed to the applicant's reported injury of Feb 2000. Finally, it remains possible that even if the applicant sustained an injury during a drill weekend, that it only became disqualifying during a subsequent period in which she was not performing duty and, thus, may have been considered non-duty related, unless shown to have been permanently aggravated by her military service. A line of duty determination, adequate medical documentation, and the applicant's duty status when she became disqualified are essential in making the distinctions. The Medical Consultant empathizes with the applicant's dilemma, but opines she has not met the burden of proof that warrants the desired change of the record. The Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant located a letter from ANG/SGPS, dated 18 Jan 2001, notifying her she was certified “Medically Disqualified for Worldwide Duty” and a copy of AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, dated 25 Jan 2001, stating she was medically disqualified for worldwide duty. She should have been allowed PEB processing. It appears the advisory opinions are following the same steps by not allowing her PEB processing, in regards to her injury. It is obvious she should have been compensated for her medical condition since her condition does not allow her to serve in the military. She questions why the National Guard would medically disqualify her and not grant her VA compensation (sic). She speculates whether she should have been allowed to stay in the military and treated for her injury. She had three major surgeries at her own expense and continues to undergo pain management treatments. It has been over 10 years since her cervical disk injury and contends her condition is permanent. Her cervical disk injury has also caused her emotional stress. She was medically disqualified for worldwide duty and was medically discharged for the injury that occurred during her drill weekend in Feb 2000. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ 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. The applicant is requesting her records be corrected in a form or manner that would qualify her for disability compensation. We note that the applicant has provided documentation reflecting she was medically disqualified for worldwide duty; however, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that a physical condition existed at the time that met the requirements for processing through the disability evaluation system. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting his request for disability compensation. 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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive Session on 31 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2011-03304: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Aug 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/SGPF, dated 6 Jan 2012. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/AlPS, dated 17 Jan 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Feb 2012. Exhibit E. Rebuttal, Applicant, 16 Mar 2012. Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 27 Apr 2012. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 27 Apr 2012. Exhibit H. Rebuttal, Applicant, dated 12 May 2012, w/atchs.