RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02464
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) be determined to be within the
line of duty (LOD) by applying the Eight Year Rule.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During both of his LOD determinations, the wrong point summary
close out date was used to determine his eligibility for the
Eight Year Rule, unfairly resulting in his ineligibility. If
the correct close out date was used, he would have had enough
points to qualify for application of the Eight Year Rule.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the applicants military personnel records, he
currently serves in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of master
sergeant (E-7).
On 27 Jul 09, the applicant commenced a tour of active service.
On 20 Nov 09, he was found to have a medical condition that
restricted him from Reserve participation for pay or points, and
he was subsequently diagnosed with OSA. The applicant requested
a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to determine fitness for duty.
On 3 May 10, he was released from active duty at the completion
of his active service. Two Informal LODs, dated 23 May 2010 and
14 Feb 2011, determined that his OSA existed prior to entry into
service (EPTS)LOD not applicable.
Per AFI 36-2910, paragraph 3.4.1.2.3., the Eight Year Rule
states a disabling condition will be found to be in the line of
duty, even though the condition existed prior to serve (EPTS),
if the member has a least eight years of active service (8 years
do not have to be consecutive), and the member was on active
duty orders specifying a period of more than 30 days at the time
the condition became unfitting, as subsequently determined by a
Physical Evaluation Board.
On 2 Feb 2011, AFRC/SGPA notified the members unit that the
applicant was medically determined to be fit for duty and
returned him to duty with an Assignment Limitation Code (ALC).
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFRC/SG recommends denial. The Eight Year Rule requires the
medical condition be disabling. The application of the Eight
Year Rule can only be made by the Physical Evaluation Board.
The applicant was found fit and returned to duty on an
Assignment Limitation Code on 2 Feb 2010. Members found fit and
returned to duty are not considered disabled. Only disabling
conditions qualify for consideration under the Eight Year Rule.
A complete copy of the AFRC/SG 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 4 Nov 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.
A copy of the SAF/MRBR letter to the applicant is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
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. 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 Air Force office of primary responsibility
(OPR) and adopt its 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 the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the
applicant was denied without a personal appearance; and the
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with the
application.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2011-02464 in Executive Session on 2 Feb 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 2011, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/SG, dated 10 Aug 2011.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 2011.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03762
The Eight-Year Rule states a disabling condition will be found to be in the line of duty, even though the condition EPTS, if the member has at least eight years of service, and the member was on active duty orders specifying a period of 30 days at the time the condition became unfitting, as subsequently determined by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The applicant has over eight years of active duty, and therefore, his disability should have been found to be in the LOD as a matter of law....
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04572
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04572 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: While it is not readily apparent, it appears as though the applicant is requesting that her lower back pain condition be determined to be in the line of duty (LOD). She had five such determinations completed. Therefore, in view of the AFBCMR Medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-00979
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00979 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Line of Duty (LOD) Determination, dated 16 November 2011, for allergic rhinitis and chronic sinusitis be changed from Existed Prior to Service - Not Applicable (EPTS/NA) to In the Line of Duty (ILOD) or Existed Prior to Service Aggravated...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05854
His records be corrected to show that he was not released from active duty on 7 Aug 12, but instead continued on active duty for medical continuation (MEDCON) until 4 Sep 12. § 1207a, a disabling condition will be found to be in the line of duty (ILOD) if it becomes unfitting, even though the condition existed prior to service (EPTS), if the member has at least eight years of cumulative active service, and the member was on active duty orders specifying a period of more than 30 days at the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03633
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/A1BR recommends the requested relief be denied. A complete copy of the HQ AFRC/A1BR evaluation is attached at Exhibit B. We took note of the applicant’s contentions and the documentation provided in support of his request for an In Line of Duty Determination for sleep apnea and retroactive lost participation points and time in grade for retirement from December 2004 through October 2005.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00880
Her OSA was found not in the line of duty by reason of Existed Prior to Service (EPTS) – LOD not applicable. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/SG recommends denial, noting that while her diagnosis corresponds to a period of active duty, absent a mid-face tumor or trauma, OSA has an incubation period of months to years. She notes she mistakenly did not provide all the active duty orders she had been on between the Jan 07 and Nov 09...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01937
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was discharged from the Air Force as a result of Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) findings. STATEMENT OF FACTS: In a letter dated 7 February 2014, the FPEB determined the applicant was unfit to perform the duties of her office, grade, rank, or rating based on her diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Bronchiectasis. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02343
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02343 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His condition of Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) be changed to reflect In the Line of Duty (ILOD) rather than Existed Prior to Service (EPTS) Line of Duty Not Applicable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...
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...