ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2011-04310
      COUNSEL: NONE
	             		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

Her Reserve retirement be changed to a disability retirement. 

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Air National Guard who, 
on 9 May 2007, presented to a military outpatient clinic with a 
report of “multiple episodes of bronchospasm.”  Her medical 
records indicate she reported her symptoms “were irritated by 
her deployment to Turkey in 2003 and Iraq in 2004.”  The record 
also indicates her condition was controlled with an inhaled 
bronchodilator and inhaled steroid combination; however her 
condition was determined disqualifying for retention under the 
provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 48-123.  An Air Force 
Form 348, Line of Duty Determination, dated 9 May 2007, 
indicates the applicant had an initial LOD approved on 28 July 
2004, regarding a diagnosis of acute bronchitis.  A 
pulmonologist subsequently diagnosed the applicant with Asthma, 
which is a disqualifying condition for further military service.  
Her respiratory condition was found to be In the Line of Duty 
(ILOD).  

On 20 September 2007, the applicant underwent a Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB) for Asthma and Sleep Apnea.  Her case was 
subsequently referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board 
(IPEB).  The IPEB found the applicant’s condition did not 
prevent her from reasonably performing her duties of her office, 
grade, rank or rating; and, recommended her for return to duty.  
The applicant disagreed with the IPEB decision; however there is 
no evidence to show she sought further appellate review of the 
IPEB findings and recommended disposition.  

As a result, even though the applicant was returned to duty, she 
did not meet medical standards for worldwide deployments.  
Because her position was a deployable one, her unit was 
instructed to place the applicant in an Assignment Limitation 
Code-C status with a re-evaluation period/expiration date of 
31 December 2008, and to convert her position to a non-
deployable one in order to retain her.  However, the applicant’s 
position was projected for elimination at the end of Calendar 
Year 2008; therefore, upon expiration of the converted non-
deployable position, she again became disqualified for 
retention.  

Because the applicant had served more than 15 but less than 20 
years of satisfactory service, she was subsequently reassigned 
to the Retired Reserve Section and placed on the USAF Reserve 
Retired List effective 1 January 2009.  

On 27 November 2012, the Board considered and denied the 
applicant’s initial appeal to change her Reserve retirement to a 
disability retirement.  For an accounting of the facts and 
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s earlier appeal; and, 
the rationale of the decision by the Board, see the Record of 
Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit D with Exhibits A through C.  

On 14 March 2013, the applicant submitted a request for 
reconsideration, and provided civilian medical treatment 
documentation as new evidence of her condition of Asthma. 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E.  

________________________________________________________________
_

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1. In earlier findings, the Board determined that there was insufficient 
evidence to warrant changing the applicant’s Reserve retirement to a 
disability retirement.  After thoroughly reviewing the additional 
documentation submitted in support of this appeal and the 
evidence of record, we do not believe the applicant has overcome 
the rationale expressed in the previous decision.  Therefore, we 
do not find the additional evidence presented is sufficient to 
warrant the relief sought on that basis.  In the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to 
recommend favorable consideration of the applicant’s request.

2. 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 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-04310 in Executive Session on 1 April 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			                   , Panel Chair
			                   , Member
			                   , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04310:

    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Mar 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  ROP, dated 8 Jan 13, w/Exhibits A through C.




								                
								Panel Chair