ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03907
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: XXXXXX
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His honorable discharge be changed to a disability discharge.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on
27 March 2008. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicants appeal and the rationale of the
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at
Exhibit F.
In a letter, dated 9 January 2009, the applicant requests
reconsideration. He states the hypersensitivity issue as
described in AFOSH 48-8 was never considered by the Board. The
evaluation fails to make the connection that any exposure injury
to these chemicals, while performing his military duties, should
be considered an LOD injury. AFOSH 48-8 1.2.4 requires that
once workers suspect that material in the workplace has had an
impact on their health, the worker must be evaluated by a
physician under the direction of the Aerospace Medical Council.
He never received proper advice or care. His bronco challenge
report indicate he is indeed hypersensitive and the LOD
evaluation should have been performed with this standard being
applied.(Exhibit G).
________________________________________________________________
_
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was
insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action. 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. We note the applicants counsels
assertion that the applicant did not receive a proper medical
evaluation and that the attending physician did not perform
tests that could diagnose whether the applicant has any
hypersensitivity to the exposure in the workplace. However the
medical evidence provided is insufficient for us to reach this
conclusion. Should the applicant submit new evidence not
previously considered by the Board, such as physical fitness
test results during his entire military service, medical
documentation from military and civilian sources regarding his
clinical history, presentation and treatments, and pre and post
deployment physical assessments reflecting a total absence of a
chronic respiratory ailment or symptoms suggestive of asthma, or
a previous history of asthma that is now of a far greater level
of severity than would be expected through its natural
progression, further reconsideration of this case may be
warranted. However, we do not find that the evidence currently
before us is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the
relief sought. Therefore, the applicants request is again
denied.
________________________________________________________________
_
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2007-03907 in Executive Session on 11 March 2010,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2007-03907 was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 21 April 2008,
w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 January 2009,
w/atchs.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03907
AFRC/SGP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the evaluation and states he was not granted due process during the discharge process. His disqualifying medical condition was caused or aggravated by exposure to respiratory irritants during periods of active military status that he was denied an LOD determination prior to military separation based on...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 04310 2
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. 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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01388
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01388 INDEX CODE 108.01 108.02 108.10 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1968 discharge for physical disability, existed prior to service (EPTS), be changed to a medical retirement. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02522
The rating for the unfitting asthma condition is addressed below. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Bronchial Asthma6699-660210%Asthma6602100%20070531Other x 1 (Not in Scope)Other x 5 Combined: 10%Combined: 100% *Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20060801 (most proximate to date of separation (DOS)) ANALYSIS SUMMARY :The Board also acknowledges the CI’s contention that suggests a higher service rating should have been granted on the unfitting medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01757
The IPEB reviewed his case and found the member fit and recommended, "Return to Duty." BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated he sought a second opinion by pulmonologist in December 2005 and was diagnosed with asthma after having below normal pulmonary function tests. In this respect, the Board notes...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01757
The IPEB reviewed his case and found the member fit and recommended, "Return to Duty." BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated he sought a second opinion by pulmonologist in December 2005 and was diagnosed with asthma after having below normal pulmonary function tests. In this respect, the Board notes...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04516
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04516 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 6P (medically disqualified/pending waiver) be changed to allow him to reenter the service. Conditions which may seriously compromise the near-term well-being if an individual were to deploy are disqualifying for...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02590
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02590 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Correct the Line of Duty (LOD) finding of existed prior to service (EPTS LOD Not Applicable) for chronic asthmatic bronchitis and chronic sinusitis, to reflect in the line of duty (ILOD), in block 11 of the AFRC IMT 348, dated 24 September 2008. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04310
The applicant was retained for an additional period of time in the service after being found fit, until her position was eliminated. Nevertheless, decisions by the military departments are based upon evidence present at the time of release from service and are not binding by the DVA. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANTS EVALUATION: A...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02620 ADDENDUM
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 26 Jan 11, the Board for Corrections of Military Records (BCMR) considered and denied the applicants request to change his RE code. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants request; and, the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit G (with Exhibits A and F). The evidence submitted in support of the appeal is at...