RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04404 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge with severance pay be changed to a medical retirement. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His original medical records were lost and he was sent to medical appointments that did not pertain to his illness. He underwent a medical board and was determined to be fit and returned to duty. He appealed but was denied due to his records being lost. He has obtained his records and received a disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for the same condition that he was placed on medical retirement for. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 22 Mar 88, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. The applicant's medical records reflect that while on active duty he was treated for a variety of medical conditions to include ethmoid sarcoidosis with associated headaches, hypertension, nose bleeds, sinusitis, seizure and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. On 11 Feb 97, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for ethmoidal sarcoidosis, chronic sinusitis secondary to the sarcoidosis, and sickle cell trait. The MEB narrative summary noted the applicant’s headaches with a positive response to prednisone. The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) recommended return to duty. On 26 Jan 00, the applicant underwent a second MEB for sarcoidosis and headaches. The IPEB found him unfit and recommended placement on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) with a 30 percent disability rating. On 3 Jan 02, the applicant underwent a TDRL reevaluation. On 11 Jan 02, the IPEB found the applicant fit and recommended removal from the TDRL and return to duty noting the applicant’s medical condition no longer interfered with his ability to perform his duties. The applicant disagreed with the findings and recommendation of the IPEB and appealed to the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB). On 7 Mar 02, the FPEB reviewed the applicant’s case file and found him to be unfit and assigned a zero percent disability rating, and on that same date the applicant concurred with the findings of the FPEB. On 31 Mar 02, the applicant was removed from the TDRL and discharged for physical disability with severance pay. He was credited with 12 years, 1 month, and 2 days of service for severance pay. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The preponderance of the evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time of separation. The applicant indicates he was sent to medical appointments that did not pertain to his major illness and was found fit to be returned to duty. However, he was discharged after appealing to the FPEB and concurring with its findings and recommendation. The applicant’s TDRL reevaluation narrative summary specifically noted sarcoidosis, the condition for which he was found unfit for continued military service. Furthermore, he has not provided any evidence that he disagreed with the diagnosis of sarcoidosis at the time he was placed on the TDRL. The applicant further contends he was not provided an opportunity to appeal because his original military medical records were lost, however, he has not provided any evidence to substantiate he was not afforded an opportunity to appeal to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant is requesting a medical retirement, however, the military Disability Evaluation System was established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force and can by law only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a service member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of final military disposition, and not based on future progression or expression of disease. Per the Department of Defense Instruction 1332.32, Physical Disability Evaluation, a service member shall be considered unfit when the evidence establishes that the service member, due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating to include duties during a remaining period of Reserve obligation. In appeal, the applicant successfully argued that he was unfit, but was assigned a zero percent disability rating by the FPEB. The applicant now requests a medical retirement due to headaches. While the applicant’s headaches were determined to be associated with his sarcoidosis during his initial TDRL placement, and removal, the headaches were not considered individually unfitting. The Medical Consultant notes statements extracted from the original MEB summary, which read, “The patient also has headaches, which are relatively debilitating except for when he is on moderate to high dose steroids.” “This patient’s headaches have impacted on his ability to perform his duty consistently, due to their relative frequency and severity.” Statements of this nature gives this reviewer pause as to whether headaches were inappropriately excluded as individually unfitting at the time of TDRL placement. While one can argue the applicant’s headaches should have been rated separately at the time he was first placed on the TDRL, this decision would not be determinative of whether headaches were individually unfitting at the time of release from the TDRL. The Medical Consultant concedes that initial IPEB fit recommendation in Jan 02 was likely based solely on the pulmonologist’s determination that there was no impairment from a respiratory function perspective; but did not consider possible existence of other residual impairments or level of severity, e.g., headaches. However, at this juncture arguing for individual unfitness due to headaches is difficult to arrive at or to quantify for disability rating purposes, now over one decade since discharge. However, consideration of the probative value of any rating decisions made by the DVA, based upon examinations conducted at or about the time of the applicant’s removal from TDRL, would be helpful and should be taken into consideration. We are reminded that, operating under a different set of laws the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred, without regard to its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s retainability or fitness to serve. The DVA compensation system was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not unfitting for military service or at the time of separation. Moreover, while the Military Department’s TDRL assessment was final, 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, affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the veteran. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Jul 15, for review and comment 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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant has failed to provide any evidence of an error or injustice occurring during his disability processing. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2014-04404 in Executive Session on 9 Sep 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04404 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 11 Dec 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Jul 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jul 15.