Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-01615
Original file (BC-2010-01615.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01615

XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE

HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be medically retired from active duty due to the medical conditions he incurred in the line of duty (LOD).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been medically retired instead of being discharged for being disqualified for world-wide duty. He has documentation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) that proves he was diagnosed with asthma, sleep apnea, and gastro esophageal reflux disease (GERD) while on active duty. He never had symptoms prior to his active duty service and these conditions should have been the subject of an LOD determination along with his shoulder injury.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of correspondence from the DVA and excerpts from his military personnel records, which include his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, pre and post-deployment health assessments, and correspondence related to his medical disqualification from world-wide duty.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he served with the Air National Guard (ANG) in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), effective and with a date of rank of 1 May 08.

On 7 May 08, the applicant was ordered to active duty voluntarily in support of Operation JOINT GUARDIAN. According to his DD Form 214, he was deployed to Aviano, Italy from 9 May 08 through 15 Sep 08.

Upon his return to home station, the applicant was retained on active duty for medical hold until his release on 14 May 09, when he reverted to his traditional (part-time) status as a member of the ANG.

On 5 Mar 10, the applicant was notified of his medical disqualification for world-wide duty and pending recommendation for discharge from the ANG. He was further notified of his rights to appeal the decision through the Disability Evaluation System (DES).

According to AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation, members of the Ready Reserve who are pending separation for a non-duty related impairment shall be afforded the opportunity to enter the disability system for a determination of fitness only but shall not be afforded disability benefits.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1 makes no recommendation, indicating the applicant’s submission and evidence of record lack sufficient documentation upon which to base a recommendation.

A complete copy of the NGB/A1 evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provides an expanded statement indicating he began receiving treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) in May 09. He contends he has proven that his medical symptoms are actual conditions which occurred during his active duty service. In support of his response, the applicant provides copies of his active duty orders and medical progress notes.

A complete copy of the applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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 applicant contends he suffered an injustice when he was disqualified from world-wide duty and discharged rather than being medically retired for his asthma, sleep apnea, and gastro esophageal reflux disease (GERD). He also contends that all of these conditions coincided with his active duty tour and should have been evaluated for service connection. However, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, including his response to the Air Force evaluation, we are not convinced he has been the victim of an error or injustice. While the evidence provided indicates he was retained on active duty for medical hold for nearly eight months, apparently due to a shoulder injury he incurred in the line of duty (LOD), and he received some medical treatment for his disqualifying conditions from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) just prior to and after his release from active duty, he has not provided sufficient evidence to persuade us that his disqualifying conditions were incurred or aggravated by his military service. In the absence of such evidence, and in light of the fact he had ample opportunity to have any suspected injury, illness, or disease properly evaluated for service connection during his nearly eight months of medical hold, we are not convinced he is the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, absent persuasive evidence the applicant was denied rights to which he was entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 issues 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-2010-01615 in Executive Session on 11 Jan 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair

Ms. XXXXXXXXXX, Member

Ms. XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01615 was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 May 10, w/atchs.

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.

Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 25 Jun 10.

Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 10.

Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, 16 Nov 10, w/atchs.

XXXXXXXXXX

Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00537

    Original file (PD2011-00537.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SPC/E-4 (25L/Cable Systems Installer), medically separated for chronic nausea and vomiting of unknown etiology, with normal nutritional state. The PEB awarded 0% disability for the chronic nausea and vomiting condition and determined the GERD condition to be not unfitting. It notes the normal laboratory findings, other than the evidence for mononucleosis, and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012832

    Original file (20090012832.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his records to show all the conditions that were listed on his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) are rated. The reflux disease was rated at 10 percent and his psychiatric conditions were also rated. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01157

    Original file (BC-2013-01157.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 May 2011, NGB/A1PS found the applicant medically disqualified for worldwide duty for sleep apnea and requested a fitness evaluation. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/SGPA recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a medical retirement. Furthermore, the applicant was diagnosed with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome in 2010 by the DVA but there is no documentation to support any service connected aggravation.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02182

    Original file (PD-2013-02182.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20040905 The CI had past medical history of atypical chest pain diagnosed as gastritis, Barrett’s esophagitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), hiatal herniaand esophageal spasms. As discussed above, PEB reliance on the USAPDA policy/guidance memorandum #12 table of analogous codes (since withdrawn)for rating reflux disease with atypical chest pain, suspected esophageal spasm condition was operant in this case and the condition was adjudicated independently of that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00593

    Original file (BC-2011-00593.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00593 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His medical condition (Essential Tremor) be found to be in the Line of Duty (INLOD) and/or service-connected. The applicant’s unit conducted a World Wide Duty Evaluation (WWDE) and he was disqualified from WWD, due to the implant of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00978

    Original file (PD2010-00978.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    CI CONTENTION : The CI states, “Request is in reference to the regulation governing the PDBR DOD instruction (6040.44)- board will review not only conditions on which ratings are based but conditions identified by the PEB this should include any condition listed in the narrative summary of the medical evaluation board to the PEB which set the ratings. As noted above, the Army PEB found him unfit due to left TOS, and he was separated with a rating of 20%. The Board determined therefore,...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00282

    Original file (PD2011-00282.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was then medically separated with a 20% disability rating. The Board evaluates VA evidence proximal to separation in arriving at its recommendations, but its authority resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness decisions and rating determinations for disability at the time of separation. The FPEB, as upheld by the USAF Personnel Council, and the VA both adjudicated a 20% disability rating for chronic angioedema with urticaria, coded 7118 based on attacks with laryngeal...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03453

    Original file (BC-2006-03453.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his appeal, he has furnished copies of numerous documents corresponding with the office of Senator Bill Frist, a Medical Board Report, dated 6 December 2004, numerous medical documents from St. Thomas Hospital, The Heart Group, and his military medical records, a synopsis of his Guard Career, a Timeline, a letter of indebtedness from the 118 AW/FMFPM, dated 26 October 2005, his DD Form 214, dated 28 February 2005, SO RX-626, dated, 2 March 2003, and SO RX-368, dated 4 January...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01789

    Original file (BC-2005-01789.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, which provided clinical evidence that she had a real medical problem that produced the symptoms and conditions used to suggest the diagnosis of Dysthymia and Personality Disorder. She was diagnosed with thyroid cancer only four months after her discharge from the Air Force. The BCMR Medical Consultant concludes that the applicant’s diagnosis of personality...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00809

    Original file (PD2011-00809.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the LBP condition as unfitting, rated 20% and additionally occasional bilateral lower extremity numbness, multilevel lumbar spondyloarthropathy, and right lower extremity radiating pain conditions rated category II, with application of SECNAVINST 1850.4E and the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI appealed to a Formal PEB (FPEB) which met on 8 February 2005 and after hearing formal testimony from the CI, reviewing the PEB case file...