Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03326
Original file (BC-2005-03326.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03326
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 MAY 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She desires to enlist in the Air Force Reserves; however, she  was  informed
that with her current RE code (2Q) she  is  not  eligible  to  enlist.   She
states she  has  been  medically  cleared  by  several  specialists  and  is
currently serving as a special agent for the  federal  government  with  the
responsibility  of  carrying  a  firearm  to  fulfill  the  duties  of   law
enforcement personnel.

In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal  statement  and
medical documentation.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 13 September 2000.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 18 February 2003  and  referred
her case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB)  with  a  diagnosis
of seizure disorder and granulocytopenia.  On 1 April 2003, the  IPEB  found
her unfit for further military service  based  on  a  diagnosis  of  seizure
disorder on anti convulsants and  granulocytopenia.   The  IPEB  recommended
that she be discharged with a  combined  compensable  rating  of  10%.   The
applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the  IPEB.
 The Office of  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  directed  that  she  be
separated from active service for physical disability.  On 4 June 2003,  the
applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions  of  AFI  36-3212  –
disability/severance pay.  She served 2 years,  8  months,  and  22 days  on
active duty.  The applicant received an RE code of 2Q – personnel  medically
retired or discharged.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The BCMR Medical  Consultant
states the applicant experienced approximately  four  episodes  of  loss  of
consciousness (syncope) while on active duty diagnosed as  seizure  disorder
leading to disability discharge.  The  applicant  now  submits  a  neurology
evaluation following separation that casts doubt on  diagnosis  of  epilepsy
and favors  vaso-depressor  syncope  (neurocardiogenic  syncope,  vaso-vagal
syncope).  She has also submitted a normal cardiology  evaluation  including
tilt  table  testing  that  did  not  reproduce  syncope  during  the  test.
Neurocardiogenic syncope cannot be excluded by a negative  tilt  table  test
(in particular a single test) as the occurrence of a false negative test  is
estimated to  occur  from  14 to  30  percent.   The  cardiology  evaluation
concluded her episodes of syncope in  service  were  due  to  vaso-depressor
syncope.  Whether epileptic or non-epileptic, her recurrent  syncope/seizure
while in service was unfitting for continued military service  and  although
she reports currently doing well in this regard, remains  disqualifying  for
reentry due to the underlying  risk  for  recurrence  when  exposed  to  the
rigors of military service.  In  addition  to  her  recurrent  syncope,  the
applicant has a history of post traumatic stress disorder  (currently  rated
50 percent disabling by the  DVA)  that  is  disqualifying  for  entry  into
military service (merely a history of  such  is  disqualifying  for  entry).
Action and disposition in this case  are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 October 2006, the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for  review
and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date,  this  office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an  error  or  injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, it is  our  opinion  that
given the circumstances surrounding her separation from the Air  Force,  the
RE code assigned (2Q) was proper and  in  compliance  with  the  appropriate
directives.  The applicant has not provided any evidence  which  would  lead
us to  believe  otherwise.   Therefore,  we  agree  with  the  BCMR  Medical
Consultant and adopt his rational 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  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an 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-2005-
03326 in Executive Session on 2 November 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
                 Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Oct 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Oct 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Oct 06.




                       JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                       Panel Chair




Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00602

    Original file (PD2011-00602.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the condition as vasodepressor syncope associated with seizure activity, and found the condition unfitting, rated 10%, IAW the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board concurs with the PEB decision to code the CI’s syncope condition as analogous to code 8210, paralysis of the tenth (vagus) cranial nerve, since several of the CI’s syncopal and presyncopal episodes had no associated seizure activity, and neurological evaluation and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-01184A

    Original file (BC-2001-01184A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ______________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends consideration for rating her neurocardiogenic syncope based on the severity of the condition at the time of her discharge. The service medical record finds no evidence of these symptoms while on active duty. In this regard, we note that the BCMR Medical Consultant believes that had her diagnosis of neorocardiogenic syncope been made definitively while on...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 00605

    Original file (PD 2014 00605.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD-2014-00605BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCEBOARD DATE: 20140827 Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records.IAW DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s authority is limited to making recommendations on correcting disability determinations. Neurocardiogenic...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02124

    Original file (PD-2014-02124.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The MEB also identified and forwarded four additional conditions, “Post-concussive headaches (controlled with medication, not unfitting for military duty); Thrombocytopenia (acute; not unfitting for military duty); Recurrent epistaxis (EPTS) and Recurrent major depression (EPTS; not unfitting for military duty).” The PEB adjudicated “neurocardiogenic syncope” as unfitting, rated 10% with likely application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01536

    Original file (PD-2013-01536.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD-2013-01536 BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army BOARD DATE: 20150107 CI CONTENTION :“I feel I was underrated for disability by the US Army and wish the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) to review my case in order to determine if was properly rated for "Cardiogenic Syncope" (10%) and "Discogenic Disease and Fractured Disc at L5S 1" (10%). Pre-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02156

    Original file (BC-2004-02156.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was convened in Nov 01 in accordance with Air Force policy and initially returned the applicant to duty based on his only having a singe seizure episode and being recurrence free without medication for three months. Based on stable, seizure free epilepsy, the IPEB rated the applicant’s seizure disorder at 10% and controlled by medication according to guidance in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). ...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01395

    Original file (PD-2014-01395.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MVP with the three regurgitations and the neurocardiogenic syncope are two separate diagnoses.The neurocardiogenic syncope is treated with the pacemaker, not the MVP.” The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The CI had an exercise stress test 14 months prior to separation that documented a workload of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02368

    Original file (BC-2002-02368.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, several disabling conditions were deleted, without explanation and if they had been properly considered by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as required by law and regulation, he contends these additional unfitting conditions would have increased his total rating to be at least 30 percent and he would have been placed on the TDRL. The BCMR Medical Consultant concurs with the findings of the IPEB that the applicant’s conditions did not warrant a disability retirement or placement...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00093

    Original file (PD2011-00093.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    CI CONTENTION : “My rating from the Air Force combined two disabilities into one, where the VA found it to be two separate conditions. In the matter of the neurocardiogenic syncope associated with depressive disorder condition, the Board unanimously recommends that it be rated for two separate conditions as follows: neurocardiogenic syncope as unfitting, rated 10% by a vote of 2:1 and coded 8299-8210 IAW VASRD §4.124a; and depressive disorder unanimously as not unfitting. The pertinent...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02168

    Original file (BC-2003-02168.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Evidence has not been provided by the applicant, which would lead us to believe that she was unfit due to a physical disability at the time of her discharge. Therefore, since there were no disqualifying medical conditions at the time of her separation, we see no reason why she would have been eligible for consideration in the disability evaluation system. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...