RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01173
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her reentry (RE) code of 2Q (personnel medically retired or
discharged) be changed to allow her reentry into military
service.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She has medical documentation which proves she does not have
asthma.
In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal
statement, copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty, a newspaper article, extracts from
her medical records, and her Department of Veterans Affairs
(DVA) rating decision letters.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 14 May 02, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
Records reveal that on 8 Jan 04, the applicant was referred to
the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for asthma.
The IPEB determined the applicants asthma existed prior to
service (EPTS) and recommended Discharge Under Other Than
Chapter 61, Title 10, United States Code. The IPEB noted,
member had symptoms during Basic Military Training; therefore,
the Board opines that the 180-day rule applies.
On 26 Jan 04, the applicant non-concurred with the findings of
the IPEB and requested a formal hearing with counsel before the
Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).
On 22 Mar 04, the FPEB concurred with the findings and
recommendation of the IPEB and recommended Discharge Under Other
Than Chapter 61, Title 10, United States Code, for asthma which
existed prior to service. The FPEB noted, member continued to
experience increasingly frequent episodes of shortness of breath
and labored breathing in Technical School after being treated
for Pneumonia, which continued at her first duty assignment.
The Board opines that the members shortness of breath and
labored breathing were indications of asthma, which occurred
within 180-days of active service.
The applicant non-concurred with the findings of the FPEB and
elected not to submit written matters to the Secretary of the
Air Force for review.
On 31 Mar 04, the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
determined the applicant was physically unfit for continued
military service due to a physical disability which existed
prior to service and directed the applicants discharge.
On 28 May 04, the applicant was separated with an honorable
discharge with the narrative reason for separation of
Disability Existed Prior to Service PEB, and with the RE
code of 2Q. She is credited with 2 years and 15 days of active
service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. He states he
does not wish to deprive the applicant of re-entering military
service, but finds the evidence supplied insufficient to show an
error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the
record.
The complete BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant on 17 Nov 10 for review and comment within
30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not
received a response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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 opinion and recommendation
of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the
basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim
of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that 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 Docket Number
BC-2010-01173 in Executive Session on 25 January 2011, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
1 Nov 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Nov 10.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00797
In the clinical history taken in conjunction with her MEB, the applicant reported experiencing shortness of breath as a child, which was relieved by taking inhalers one time, although not formally diagnosed with asthma. The complete BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11 Sep 09 for review and...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01720
The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Aug 10 for review and comment within 30 days (E). 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-1997-03689-2
His medical condition has changed and improved since his last evaluation by the Air Force in March 1996. The ROTC cadet command referred back to his original Medical Evaluation Board ruling without consideration of his improved condition. The BCMR Medical Consultant notes that while the applicant reports he has improved his exercise tolerance, asthma is a condition that can remain symptom free over extended periods (as evidenced by his recurrence of asthma on active duty after over 10...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05258
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05258 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation of DISABILITY EXISTED PRIOR TO SERVICE be changed to a service connected disability or the narrative reason be removed. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02027
The BCMR Medical Consultant states that, although the applicant’s asthma may be mild, it has resulted in duty limitations that are not compatible with a fully fit and vital force and poses requirements that the Physical Evaluation Boards and Air Force Personnel Council previously determined to be unreasonable. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) reviewed the evidence and testimony presented by the FPEB and IPEB, including service medical record and the medical summary...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03356
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03356 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2Q (Personnel medically retired or discharged) be changed to allow reentry in the military. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03095
On 6 March 2000, the applicant submitted her rebuttal letter to SAFPC requesting a disability retirement, with a compensable disability rating of 40 percent. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant summarized the information contained in the applicant’s personnel and medical records and is of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence of the record supports a disability rating of 20 percent. A complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02625
Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.” Rating guidance contained in the VASRD, Section 4.7, Higher of two evaluations, states, “Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02228
The IPEB noted that she had declined further “ablation surgery.” On 9 March 2006, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ 5 APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 15 Feb 13, by letter, the applicant amended her request and now ask to be medically retired instead of being returned to duty. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00289
According to an AF Form 618, Medical Board Report, dated 15 Sep 08, he was referred for evaluation by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for diagnosis and findings of asthma. Regarding his requests to be paid $500,000 and he receive a retirement check, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant correcting his record in the manner requested. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate...