AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00880 
 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
 
   
 
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
Her  diagnosis  of  obstructive  sleep  apnea  (OSA)  be  considered  in 
the line of duty (ILOD). 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
She  did  not  experience  any  symptoms  of  OSA  prior  to  her  active 
duty orders beginning.  She was on orders for a year and a half 
(approximately half way through her assignment) before the OSA was 
diagnosed. 
 
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of several 
orders placing the applicant on active duty at various times, and 
the results of two sleep studies dated 27 Jan 09 and 2 Mar 09. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant,  currently  an  Individual  Mobilization  Augmentee 
(IMA)  with  the  Air  Force  Reserve,  began  her  military  service  on 
19 Jan 93 and served with the Regular Air Force for four years. 
 
The evidence of record indicates she performed active duty between 
1  Sep  07  and  30  Sep  07  (30  days),  1  Oct  through  18  Oct  08 
(18 days),  20  Oct  through  31 Oct  08  (11  days),  and  26  Nov  08 
through 30 Sep 09 (10 months and 5 days). 
 
On 11 Sep 02, an Air Force Form 348, Line of Duty Determination, 
was  finalized  indicating  the  applicant  suffered  from  abdominal 
pain,  nausea,  weight  gain  and  fatigue.    These  conditions  were 
found ILOD.  On 15 Jan 03, another LOD determination was completed 
finding  the  applicant  suffered  from  pituitary  adenoma  and 
intermittent elevated prolactin, also found ILOD.  The second AF 
Form  348  noted  she  was  to  meet  an  MEB  after  seeing  a  new 

endocrinologist.  There is no further mention of an MEB from that 
point. 
 
On  17  Nov  09,  after  having  been  diagnosed  with  OSA,  an  informal 
line of duty determination was conducted to determine whether or 
not her OSA should be found ILOD.  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.  It is 
medically  implausible  to  believe  that  the  incubation  period  for 
OSA in her case was so short as to be measured in days to weeks. 
 
SG notes the applicant had already been considered by an LOD board 
as  a  diagnostic  pathway  for  fatigue  and  daytime  somnolence  was 
already  underway  by  Aug  08.    There  is  a  clear  attempt  over  a 
period  of  months  for  the  clinicians  to  sort  through  a  possible 
diagnosis  of  narcolepsy  as  well  as  her  longstanding  history  of 
hypothyroidism and depression as possible etiologies. 
 
The diagnosis of OSA, though temporally within a period of duty, 
does  not  equate  to  service  aggravation,  nor  does  it  equal 
causation.  The applicant’s LOD case was given an abundance of due 
diligence  and  search  for  a  finding  favorable  to  service 
connection.  Her case was adjudicated properly and in accordance 
with  acceptable  medical  standards  and  Air  Force  policy  and 
guidance. 
 
A complete copy of the AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  applicant  indicates  that  she  was  on  active  duty  for  most  of 
the period of Jan 07 through Nov 09, with only a small amount of 
time not being in a military status.  She notes she mistakenly did 
not provide all the active duty orders she had been on between the 
Jan 07 and Nov 09 time frame; however, she has not provided the 
orders, only the dates of the orders.  She notes she was on active 
duty orders when both of her sleep tests were conducted in Jul 08 
and Jan 09.  She was provided a Continued Positive Airway Pressure 
(CPAP) machine which has made all the difference.  In support of 
her response, the applicant provides copies of several active duty 
orders, point credit summary, and her LOD determination. 
 
 

 

2 

The  applicant’s  complete  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 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.    While  we  note  the 
applicant has provided documentation indicating that she performed 
several  periods  of  active  service  in  the  almost  two  years 
preceding her diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), we are 
not  convinced  that  she  has  demonstrated  there  is  causal  link 
between  her  active  service  and  OSA  diagnosis  that  would  be 
required for an affirmative line of duty (LOD) determination.  In 
this respect, we note that while it is clear she performed several 
active  duty  tours,  some  longer  than  others,  during  this  period, 
the  mere  fact  that  she  performed  these  periods  of  duty  does  not 
prove with any degree of certainty that a chronic disorder such as 
OSA  first  began  during,  or  resulted  from,  said  active  service.  
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 
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-2012-00880  in  Executive  Session  on  19  Jul  12,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 

3 

The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00880 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/SG, undated. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Apr 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Apr 12, w/atch. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Chair 
 

 

4