RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01096 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His permanent medical disability retirement be removed and he be 
reinstated back into the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) 
so that he can be commissioned as a second lieutenant in the 
USAF. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His medical condition of “Keratoconus” which subsequently led to 
his medical retirement with a disability rating of 30 percent 
has been corrected by a hybrid lens and he should be reinstated 
as a first class cadet at the USAFA. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; copies of his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) 
documentation; USAFA disenrollment documents; medical retirement 
orders, and other supporting documentation. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted 
from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the 
letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force and 
the BCMR Medical Consultant. 

 

Subsequent to this request, the applicant has been advised by 
the USAFA that since the USAFA already has an established 
process for re-admission, the BCMR process might not be the 
proper avenue to pursue re-admission at this time. The 
applicant was further advised that if he believes his vision has 
been corrected enough to meet admission standards for the USAFA 
and subsequent commissioning in the USAF, he should contact the 
nearest Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board 


(DoDMERB) office to have his vision tested. If they confirm 
that he meets their standards, then he should contact the USAFA 
admissions office for further information about re-admission. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial, stating, in part, based on a 
preponderance of the evidence, no error or injustice occurred 
during the disability process or at the time of separation. 
When the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) reviewed the 
applicant’s case, they noted: “Although you were able to 
tolerate contact lenses, the Board opines that they are 
medically required for someone with your condition, and rates 
your disability accordingly.” The applicant’s commander noted 
that there were no waivers for his condition. The applicant was 
medically retired because his eyesight did not meet the 
requirements to graduate and be commissioned as an officer in 
the USAF. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 11 Jun 10 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. He recommends 
the applicant submit an inquiry to the DoDMERB for an evaluation 
of his qualification for re-entering military service, as 
recommended by the Deputy Chief, Cadet Personnel; and if 
medically cleared or waived for service entry, the applicant 
should follow up with an application to the USAFA waiver 
authority. 

 

The applicant was retired due to a disqualifying medical 
condition called “Keratoconus.” It is a degenerative disorder 
of the eye in which structural changes within the cornea causes 
it to thin and change to a more conical shape than its normal 
gradual curve. It can cause substantial distortion of vision, 
with multiple images, streaking and sensitivity to light. 

 


Aside from the fact the applicant evidently passed accessions 
standards and examinations when he first entered the USAFA, he 
have since acquired a medical condition that is disqualifying 
for accession or induction into military service. The applicant 
is likely correct in the assumption that had he used a product 
like “SynergEyes” while attending the USAFA, he may not have 
been subject to an MEB and would have been able to complete his 
education and possibly commissioning. However, the BCMR Medical 
Consultant opines that revoking the applicant’s retirement prior 
to the applicant’s clearance by DoDMERB may be premature and 
could constitute a disservice to the applicant if he is 
subsequently denied re-entry with the loss of retirement 
benefits. He further finds it inappropriate to direct the 
applicant’s return to the USAFA without him passing the 
appropriate checks and balances designed to protect the interest 
of the applicant and the Military Department. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION 

 

A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant on 12 Oct 10 for review and comment within 30 
days. As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit F). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has not exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. In this respect, we note, the 
applicant has been advised by officials at the USAFA that if he 
believes his vision has been corrected enough to meet admission 
standards for the USAFA and subsequent commissioning in the 
USAF, he should contact the nearest Department of Defense 
Medical Examination Review Board (DoDMERB) office to have his 
vision tested. If they confirm that he meets their standards, 
then he should contact the USAFA admissions office for further 
information about re-admission. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant, and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 


not been the victim of an error or injustice. Additionally, the 
BCMR Medical Consultant opines that revoking the applicant’s 
retirement prior to the applicant being cleared by DoDMERB may 
be premature and could constitute a disservice to the applicant 
if he is subsequently denied reentry with the loss of retirement 
benefits. Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application. 

 

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 DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2010-01096 in Executive Session on 14 December 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 28 May 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 6 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Oct 10. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair