RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03678
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be reinstated to active duty with full benefits and entitlements
from the date of separation.
It appears the applicant is also requesting that her reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code of 4C be changed to allow eligibility to reenter
the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She did not have a medical condition that resulted in her separation
from the Air Force. Her condition was misdiagnosed and she was
subsequently wrongfully separated from the service.
She is currently working with an Air Force recruiter at RAF
Mildenhall, United Kingdom, to reenter the Air Force. Her paperwork
is in the system, pending approval.
In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
copies of her DD Form 214, medical documents, separation notification
letter and a statement from her cardiologist. The applicant’s complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force
on 22 Sep 99. On 5 Jan 00, the applicant received notification that
she was being recommended for discharge for erroneous enlistment. She
received an entry level separation on 11 Jan 00 under the provisions
of AFI 36-3208 (Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards). She
had completed a total of 3 months and 20 days and was serving in the
grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of separation. She received
an RE Code of 4C, which defined means “Separated for concealment of
juvenile records, minority, failure to meet physical standards for
enlistment, failure to attain a 9.0 reading grade level as measured by
the Air Force Reading Abilities Test (AFRAT), or void enlistments.”
Subsequent to the time her application was filed, on 18 Apr 02, the
applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four
years.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters
prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D,
and E.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that, while the applicant was in
technical training school, a heart murmur was noted as an incidental
finding during a clinic visit for an unrelated reason. She was
referred to cardiology for an echocardiogram to evaluate the murmur.
The study was interpreted as demonstrating a disqualifying abnormality
of the heart call a bicuspid aortic valve. As a result, entry level
separation was initiated and the applicant was discharged. The
applicant’s original medical records and echocardiogram report were
not available for review.
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that the fact there is a
disparity between the echocardiogram in Dec 99 and the recent Aug 01
study is not without precedent. There is no evidence that there was
any impropriety in the applicant’s separation. However, if her aortic
valve is normal, it would be unjust to not allow her reenlistment.
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant opines that, if the applicant’s aortic
valve is verified as normal based on repeat evaluation, the
applicant’s request should be approved. Said evaluation should be
conducted by a qualified DoD cardiologist and include repeat
echocardiography. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPPRS stated that, since the applicant was separated under a
medical condition, they defer any decision to the BCMR Medical
Consultant for the applicant’s reinstatement. Based upon the
documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation and was well documented. The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is
at Exhibit D.
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that, as a result of the applicant’s enlistment
in the grade of airman basic on 22 Sep 99, she would have met the
minimum six months time-in-grade (TIG) requirement for promotion to
airman (E-2) on 22 Mar 00, and the 10 months TIG requirement for
promotion to airman first class (E-3) on 22 Jan 01. In addition to
meeting the minimum TIG requirement, the applicant must have also been
recommended by her commander and not have been ineligible for any of
the reasons outlined in AFI 36-2502. The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is
at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 19
April 2002 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit F).
The applicant submitted a letter stating she would be returning to
active duty on 18 Apr 02, with a school date of 30 May 02. She
further forwarded her new mailing address as an airman in the USAF,
assigned to Offutt AFB, NE (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After reviewing the applicant’s
submission and the evidence of record, we are persuaded that some
relief is warranted. In this respect, we noted the disparity between
the echocardiogram in Dec 99 (abnormal heart function) and the 25 Aug
01 echocardiogram results, which reveals the applicant’s aortic valve
as normal. These differences of opinions by qualified authorities
cast doubt as to the actual medical status of the applicant. In view
of these differences, we are in agreement with the opinion and
recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant that the applicant
should be afforded the opportunity to have another medical evaluation
for a conclusive determination as to whether her aortic valve is
verified as normal based on repeat evaluation. As to the applicant’s
RE code request, we find this to be a moot issue since she is
currently on active duty. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that
the applicant’s records should be corrected to the extent indicated
below.
4. We defer final action at this time on the applicant’s request for
retroactive reinstatement on active duty from the date of her original
separation pending receipt of the results of this medical evaluation.
Upon receipt of this evaluation, we will again consider the
applicant’s request for reinstatement with full benefits and
entitlements.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
pertaining to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she undergo a repeat
medical evaluation of her previously-diagnosed condition (bicuspid
aortic valve) to include a repeat echocardiography at the nearest
military medical facility with a qualified Department of Defense
cardiologist.
It is further recommended that the results of the medical evaluation
be forwarded to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records
at the earliest practicable date so that all necessary and appropriate
actions may be completed.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 01-03678
in Executive Session on 5 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
Mr. Michael Maglio, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Dec 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,
dated 15 Mar 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Apr 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Apr 02.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Apr 02.
Exhibit G. Letters from Applicant, dated 6 Feb 02 and
8 Apr 02.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AFBCMR 01-03678
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she undergo a
repeat medical evaluation of her previously-diagnosed condition
(bicuspid aortic valve) to include a repeat echocardiography at the
nearest military medical facility with a qualified Department of
Defense cardiologist.
It is further directed that the results of the medical
evaluation be forwarded to the Air Force Board for Correction of
Military Records at the earliest practicable date so that all
necessary and appropriate actions may be completed.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-03678-2
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and, the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit H. The applicant’s medical evaluation was completed at Wilford Hall Medical Center on 17 October 2002 and the results were forwarded to the Board for review (refer to Exhibit I). The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit J. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 16 December 2002.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03453
In support of his appeal, he has furnished copies of numerous documents corresponding with the office of Senator Bill Frist, a Medical Board Report, dated 6 December 2004, numerous medical documents from St. Thomas Hospital, The Heart Group, and his military medical records, a synopsis of his Guard Career, a Timeline, a letter of indebtedness from the 118 AW/FMFPM, dated 26 October 2005, his DD Form 214, dated 28 February 2005, SO RX-626, dated, 2 March 2003, and SO RX-368, dated 4 January...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01420
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. A 10% rating under these codes stipulates “Workload of greater than 7 METs but not greater than 10 METs results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; continuous medication required.” The CI’s exercise capacity easily exceeded 10 METs. BOARD FINDINGS :...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00979
BAV and chest pain (exertion related) were the only conditions on the MEB’s submission to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. I have reviewed the subject case pursuant to reference (a) and, for the reasons set forth in reference (b), approve the recommendation of the Physical Disability Board of Review Mr. XXXX’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in either his characterization of separation or in...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03929
Title 10, USC, Section 8911, requires a member to serve at least 20 years of active federal military service to be eligible for years of service retirement (see Exhibit F). A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E. HQ AFPC/DPPRRP notes the applicant had over 15 years of active service at the time of his discharge but was not eligible to submit an application for retirement under the early retirement program because his AFSC was excluded from consideration. A complete copy of the...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02675
The MEB forwarded “aortic valve disorder” to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW SECNAVINST 1850.4E.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEB adjudicated “hypercoagulable state requiring chronic anticoagulation therapy”as unfitting, rated 0%, and determined that the bicuspid aortic valve (status post replacement) was a Category III condition, not separately unfitting and not contributing to the unfitting condition.The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. ...
Effective Apr 95, the applicant received a 30% disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his “aortic insufficiency/stenosis with mitral valve prolapse.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that as early as 1986, the applicant was diagnosed with valvular heart disease, most likely secondary to rheumatic fever, the disease affecting the aortic as...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00208 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her nonselection for reenlistment and the Unfavorable Information(UIF)/Control Roster actions be rescinded; she be promoted, with all back pay; and she be awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM. DPPAE indicated that a review of the applicant's military personnel records revealed she was nonselected for...
He accepted the undesirable discharge so he could return home to work and help his family. The board found that the applicant was physically unfit for further military duty and recommended that the applicant be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for further evaluation. On 19 March 2002, a letter was forwarded to applicant and counsel suggesting that the applicant consider providing evidence pertaining to his post-service activities.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03113
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03113 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 Apr 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The separation program designator (SPD) be changed on her DD Form 214 so she will be eligible for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits. ...