RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02620
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reentry (RE) code of 4C (Approved involuntary separation for concealment/physical standards) be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told he needed to provide a pulmonary function test (PFT) from his civilian physician in order to get his RE code changed. He provides the PFT results and believes his RE code should be changed. The evidence submitted in support of the appeal is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/A1K recommends denial. A1K states the applicants RE code does not preclude him from reentering the Air Force or Air Force Reserve, if in fact he meets the entry requirements at the time of his application. Therefore, if the applicant desires to reenter the military, he should seek reentry via the standard recruitment process for entry into the military. It will be determined at the time of the recruitment process if he physically qualifies for entry.
The AFRC/A1K complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 8 Oct 10 for review and response. The applicant responded by stating he disagrees with the Air Force recommendation.
His complete response is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant acknowledges the applicant has demonstrated normal baseline pulmonary function test results, albeit greater than 90 days old, and Jan 11 represents 3 years since his hospitalization and separation, but finds this information alone insufficient to rule out his risk for an unexpected acute exacerbation of asthma during military service. The Medical Consultant is of the opinion the applicant has not met the burden of proof of a material error or injustice that warrants the desired change of his record. Therefore, the Medical Consultant does not support this request.
The BCMR Medical Consultants complete evaluations is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 23 Dec 10 for review and response. As of this date, the applicant has not responded.
_________________________________________________________________
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. The applicants contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding the applicants separation, the RE code issued was in accordance with the appropriate directives. Consequently, 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. Therefore, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02620 in Executive Session on 26 Jan 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 10.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 10 Sep 10.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Nov 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Dec 10.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 10.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00559
It should be noted that the applicant completed Basic Military Training and was attending technical training school at the time she was identified as having asthma. On 20 Sep 13, the applicants examining provider entered the following comment in her medical record Patient has a history of EPTE [existed prior to enlistment] asthma. While the Board notes the additional testing and associated documentation the applicant completed at Lackland Air Force Base, we concur with the opinion of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00162
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/SG recommends denial of the applicant's request and states that he was deemed medically disqualified for world-wide active military service due to chronic pain in his shoulder. Air Force Regulation (AFR) 35-41,...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00062
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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03212
The AFDRB concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 May 10.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2008-04519
SGP notes to be eligible for medical retirement, the applicant must have incurred or aggravated a disqualifying condition in the line of duty. A Line of Duty (LOD) determination was provided for the diagnosis of right acoustic neuroma; however, it was not processed beyond the medical reviewer and no final determination is provided. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 11...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00638
___________________________________________________________ _____ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial, indicating the applicant did not provide any documentation that would serve as the basis for the correction requested. A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________ _____ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 14 May 10 for review and...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2008-02939
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/A1K defers to the appropriate office in regards to the applicant’s request for a medical retirement. His left knee injury was recorded as occurring “while in college.” He received periodic non-flying medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02352
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02352 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive pay and points for the period Dec 10 through Nov 12. Her medical facility failed to provide the proper documentation to the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) medical board, causing her referral to a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB)....
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00064
The Board further noted that after the applicants injury in Germany, he was returned to full duty after receiving occupational therapy, and that his recent injury happened during civilian employment, and therefore was EPTS. The second injury to the members wrist occurred in civilian status in 2005, and is therefore not service connected. The complete BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 02357
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on the available records, the applicant served on active duty, from 13 Oct 82 to 29 Oct 92 and was transferred to the Air Force Reserve. They must have eight years of active service and have been on active duty orders for more than 30 days at the time the condition became unfitting, as subsequently determined by the PEB, and meet all other requirements set forth under the law and governing Air Force...