RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00062 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Line of Duty (LOD) Determination be changed to reflect a 
service connection in order to be eligible for a medical 
retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His medical condition was incorrectly diagnosed by the base 
medical staff which forced him off of active duty. The medical 
board found his condition was caused after his enlistment and 
during the time he was on active duty, and he should be eligible 
for a medical retirement. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of 
numerous military and civilian medical documents; documentation 
from the medical board; numerous DD Forms 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and documentation 
pertaining to an inquiry to/from his Member of Congress. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered the Air Force Reserve in 1991 and served 
in the structural maintenance and security forces career fields. 
He continued his service and was eventually reassigned to the 
Retired Reserve awaiting pay at age 60, (DOB 27 June 1956 – age 
53), in the grade of technical sergeant. During the period 
1 October 2005 to 25 August 2006, the applicant while serving on 
extended active duty orders was medically evaluated for multiple 
complaints, including right facial weakness, headaches, and 
memory difficulties. He was eventually diagnosed with an 
Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome and on 25 August 2006 a 
LOD determination was completed with the finding that his 
condition existed prior to service (EPTS) thus making him 
ineligible for medical retirement. Due to the fact he was 
determined to be unfit for duty, his case was processed through 
the Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES). Although the 
applicant did not contest the finding that he was not fit for 


duty, he did contest his condition was EPTS and in a letter 
dated 11 June 2007, the Air Force found him unfit for duty but 
agreed his condition did not exist EPTS. As the applicant had 
served 15 years in the Air Force (Active and Reserve 
components), he was offered the opportunity to retire in lieu of 
an administrative separation, and he applied for retirement on 
24 October 2007 which became effective on 7 November 2007. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/A1K recommends denial. Based on the comments from AFRC/SG 
(Command Surgeon General), they did not find a service 
connection with the applicant’s medical condition. Therefore, 
he was not eligible for disability compensation through the 
Disability Evaluation System (DES), to include a medical 
retirement. 

 

After reviewing the information provided by the applicant and 
the previous LOD determination, AFRC/SG upheld the previous 
finding stating the exact cause of the applicant’s condition is 
thought to be genetic although it may be multi-factorial. 
Individuals suffering from Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome 
frequently have a history of strokes, deep venous or superficial 
venous thrombosis, or thrombophlebitis. The applicant had a 
history of these symptoms predating his activation thus making 
EPTS the most appropriate determination. The EPTS determination 
is not based upon entry into the military, but rather entry into 
the period of active duty service during which the condition was 
identified. There was no evidence the nature of the applicant’s 
military service permanently changed his condition beyond the 
natural progression; thus, a finding of service aggravation 
could not be made. 

 

As a part of the review of the applicant’s LOD determination, 
the stipulations outlined in a 26 July 2006 SAF/MR Memorandum, Disability Determinations for Air Force Reserve and Air National 
Guard Members, were also reviewed by the HQ AFRC LOD Board and 
found not to apply. This policy states that Air Reserve 
Component (ARC) members who are serving on active duty orders 
for a period of 31 days or more, who have eight years of active 
duty service and incur a disabling condition such as the one 
suffered by the applicant, will have the condition deemed “in 
the line of duty.” A review of the applicant’s military duty 
history revealed he did not meet these requirements. 

 

The AFRC/A1K evaluation, with AFRC/SG attachment, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, 
was forwarded to the applicant on 20 March 2009, for review and 
comment, within 30 days. However, as of this date, no response 
has been received by this office. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends granting partial relief 
by approving the applicant’s request to have his medical 
condition determined to be in the “line of duty” but with denial 
of a medical retirement. 

 

There is no Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) documentation 
contained in the documents provided. The applicant’s case was 
referred through the DES solely for a determination of fitness 
to serve as his condition was not considered service connected 
by HQ AFRC. The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found 
the applicant unfit for continued military service and 
determined his condition was EPTS; however, the Formal Physical 
Evaluation Board (FPEB) determined the applicant was unfit for 
duty but indicated his condition was “in the line of duty.” The 
FPEB offered the following rationale in its decision memorandum 
to HQ AFRC: The member requested the Formal Board reconsider a 
previous finding that his condition, Antiphospholipid Antibody 
Syndrome, existed prior to service. The member concurs with the 
IPEB finding that he was unfit. 

 

While the applicant received several conflicting LOD 
determinations, AFRC/SGP found the condition not in the line of 
duty – EPTS – LOD “Not Applicable (N/A).” However, the evidence 
is clear the applicant’s condition did not exist prior to 
service, as there were no evidence of the antibodies in his 
system prior to entering service. Therefore, the syndrome did 
not exist prior to service. 

 

The applicant was continuously on active duty orders from 
1 October 2003 to 25 August 2006 and there is documentation he 
was found fit for world-wide duty and occupational duties during 
this period of time. Although he had a previous history of 
stroke in 2000, documentation indicates he was adequately 
treated and returned to full duty without restrictions. Whether 
or not his Antiphospholipid antibodies existed prior to service 
will never be known and it cannot be determined when the 
applicant acquired his Antiphospholipid antibodies. Thus, 
whether in retrospect the applicant had an exacerbation of this 
condition or this was a de novo finding, it occurred while he 
was on active duty orders for more than 31 days and was not the 
result of misconduct on his part nor did it occur during a 
period of unauthorized absence. Therefore, the BCMR Medical 
Consultant agrees with the impression of the FPEB and that this 
condition was incurred, or aggravated, while on active duty and 
would therefore be found “In the Line of Duty.” 


 

In reference to the recommended disposition of the applicant’s 
case, it must be made clear the issue that has resulted in his 
career termination is not due to a particular functional 
deficit, but rather due to the risks attendant with his lifelong 
requirement for anticoagulants which military medical officials 
agree is incompatible with the rigors of military service and 
which poses an unreasonable life and mission risk. With 
reference to the disability rating determination in effect at 
the time of the applicant’s separation, (1) a minimum rating of 
30 percent is given if there have been episodes of 
thrombophlebitis in the past year (2) a 0 percent rating is 
given if there have been no episodes of thrombophlebitis in the 
past year and (3) any higher ratings are based on residuals to 
emboli or thrombophlebitis. There is documented evidence the 
applicant recovered from his stroke which occurred in 2000 and 
although he did experience a set of symptoms referred to as a 
transient ischemic attack (TIA) in 2004, there were no permanent 
residuals at the time of separation upon which to apply any 
additional or higher disability ratings. Therefore, there is no 
objective basis upon which to justify a higher disability that 
qualifies for a medical retirement thus making his acceptance of 
the service connected severance pay disposition a less favorable 
option than his present assignment to the Retired Reserve 
awaiting pay at age 60. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant on 17 August 2009, for review and 
comment, within 30 days. However, as of this date, no response 
has been received by this office (Exhibit F). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 warranting a 
change in the applicant’s LOD determination. Based on the 
available evidence of record and that provided by the applicant, 
we believe some relief is warranted. We note the comments from 
the Air Force Reserve office of primary responsibility (OPR); 
nonetheless, the BCMR Medical Consultant notes and the record 
reflect conflicting LOD determinations. Therefore, based on the 


totality of the facts and circumstances of the applicant’s case; 
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical 
Consultant, and recommend the applicant’s records be corrected 
to reflect his condition, Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome, 
was in the Line of Duty. In respect to the applicant’s request 
for a medical retirement; the applicant’s case has undergone an 
exhaustive review by the Air Force Reserve OPR and the BCMR 
Medical Consultant and we are in agreement with their assessment 
that no basis exists to justify a medical retirement. 
Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to 
the extent indicated below. 

 

4. 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 issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his 
medical diagnosis, Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome, was 
determined to be in the Line of Duty. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2009-00062 in Executive Session on 11 March 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Dec 08, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 13 Mar 09, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 09. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 7 Aug 09. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Aug 09. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair