RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01872

	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His disability rating be changed from 30 percent to 100 percent.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

 His disability rating should be changed due to the treatment he received on two failed open heart surgeries, a shortened life span due to three surgeries, mechanical aortic heart valve, blood thinner treatment for life, potential Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with fear of dying and pain and suffering from three open heart surgeries.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a retired Air Force staff sergeant.  On 21 Apr 10, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) diagnosed the applicant with chest pain secondary to bicuspid aortic valve regurgitation and stenosis.  The MEB recommended referral to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).

On 15 Jul 10, an IPEB found the applicant unfit and recommended he be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).  The IPEB indicated the applicant’s bicuspid aortic valve condition was preventing him from reasonably performing the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.

On 21 Jul 10, the applicant was relieved from active duty, effective 28 Aug 10 and placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), effective 29 Aug 10, with a compensable disability rate of 30 percent for physical disability. 

On 6 Apr 12, the applicant was removed from the TDRL, effective 26 Apr 12 and permanently retired with a compensable disability rate of 30 percent for physical disability.   For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C through E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFDD recommends denying the application.  The Air Force and the VA disability systems operate under separate laws that rating determines the final disposition (discharge with severance pay, placement on the temporary disability retired list, permanent retirement) and is not subject to change after the service member has separated.  Under the VA system (Title 38, U.S.C), the member may be reevaluated over the years and their rating may be increased or decreased based on changes in the member’s medical condition.  However, an increase or decrease in rating by the VA after separation from the service does not warrant a change in the total compensable rating awarded at the time of the member’s separation.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Psychiatric Consultant recommends denying the application.  The applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error or injustice that warrants the desired change of record.  There was no documentation during service and the TDRL timeframe indicating the applicant had experienced any posttraumatic stress symptoms from his surgeries that would render him unfit to serve or cause his career termination.

The military’s Disability Evaluation System (DES) established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries, which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the “snapshot” time of separation and not based on post-service progression of disease or injury.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denying the application.  The applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice to warrant the change for his retirement disability rating from 30 percent to 100 percent.  It was determined by competent medical authority that the applicant’s bicuspid aortic valve [BAV] condition had not changed over the past year and accordingly, his medical condition had been reasonably sufficiently stabilized to remove him from the TDRL, and permanently retire him with the disability rating for which he was initially assigned [neither higher nor lower].  There is insufficient evidence to indicate that the applicant’s heart functioning warranted a higher disability rating at the time released from the TDRL.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 30 Apr 18 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error and injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record or the rationale provided by the AFBCMR Psychiatric and Medical Consultants and other pertinent advisory.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-01872 in Executive Session on 6 Jun 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 5 May 15.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 4 Aug 16.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, BCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated 13 Mar 18.
Exhibit E: Advisory opinion, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Mar 18.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 30 Apr 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.