RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04310 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her Reserve retirement be changed to a medical retirement. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The medical data that was considered in conjunction with her line 
of duty (LOD) determination and from her private doctors was not 
reviewed accurately; nor, was the LOD considered. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of 
medical records, civilian position description, Notification of 
Personnel Action, Physical Profile Serial Reports, NGB/SGPA 
letter, Worldwide Duty Evaluation letter, and a Fitness 
Determination letter. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 9 May 2007, the applicant presented to a military outpatient 
clinic with a report of “multiple episodes of bronchospasm.” Her 
medical records indicate she reported her symptoms “were 
irritated by her deployment to Turkey in 2003 and Iraq in 2004.” 
The record also indicates her condition was controlled with an 
inhaled bronchodilator and inhaled steroid combination; however 
her condition was determined disqualifying for retention under 
the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 48-123. An Air 
Force Form 348, Line of Duty Determination, dated 9 May 2007, 
indicates the applicant had an initial LOD approved on 28 July 
2004, regarding a diagnosis of acute bronchitis. A pulmonologist 
subsequently diagnosed the applicant with Asthma, which is a 
disqualifying condition for further military service. Her 
respiratory condition was found to be In the Line of Duty (ILOD). 

 

On 20 September 2007, the applicant underwent a Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB) for Asthma and Sleep Apnea. Her case was 
subsequently referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board 
(IPEB). The IPEB found the applicant’s condition did not prevent 
her from reasonably performing her duties of her office, grade, 


rank or rating; and, recommended her for return to duty. The 
applicant disagreed with the IPEB decision; however there is no 
evidence to show she sought further appellate review of the IPEB 
findings and recommended disposition. 

 

As a result, even though the applicant was returned to duty, she 
did not meet medical standards for worldwide deployments. 
Because her position was a deployable one, her unit was 
instructed to place the applicant in an Assignment Limitation 
Code-C status with a re-evaluation period/expiration date of 
31 December 2008, and to convert her position to a non-deployable 
one in order to retain her. However, the applicant’s position 
was projected for elimination at the end of Calendar Year 2008; 
therefore, upon expiration of the converted non-deployable 
position, she again became disqualified for retention. 

 

Because the applicant had served more than 15 but less than 20 
years of satisfactory service, she was subsequently reassigned to 
the Retired Reserve Section and placed on the USAF Reserve 
Retired List effective 1 January 2009. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant 
at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical 
Consultant states that although Title 10, United States Code 
(USC), Section 1214a, has been implemented to discourage 
involuntary administrative separation of individuals for the same 
medical reason for which they were found fit for continued 
service by a PEB, the consultant is of the opinion that this does 
not directly apply to the applicant’s situation, as she was not 
administratively discharged. The applicant was retained for an 
additional period of time in the service after being found fit, 
until her position was eliminated. Given the choice of an 
administrative separation versus a retirement, it is clear why 
the applicant chose retirement. Although the applicant’s 
respiratory condition was found to be ILOD by the military, the 
Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) subsequently denied her 
service-connection for the condition. Nevertheless, decisions by 
the military departments are based upon evidence present at the 
time of release from service and are not binding by the DVA. 

 

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant on 4 October 2012 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has received 
no reply. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an 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 the 
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. 

 

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 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-2011-04310 in Executive Sessions on 27 November 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04310: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 18 Nov 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 27 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dtd 4 Oct 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair