RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 


IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02176 
COUNSEL: __________________ 
__________________________ HEARING DESIRED: YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He be allowed to undergo a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) anddisability processing for a history of recurrent cerebral 
vascular accidents. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He was clearly on active duty when his injuries were incurred;
therefore, he is entitled to be processed through the DisabilityEvaluation System (DES). 

He suffered a stroke while on active duty on or about 7 September2010. He was admitted to a local hospital for a headache,
tingling tongue, and blurry vision. He was subsequentlydischarged on 8 September 2010, without a determination as to thecause 
of his symptoms. He suffered another stroke on 8 February2011 while on active duty to attend a class from 7 February 2011to 1 March 2011
He was admitted to the emergency room fortreatment and was released from the hospital on 11 February 2011. 

He was subsequently found to be temporarily medicallydisqualified and was given 60 days to provide the Air Force withmedical 
documentation regarding his injuries. On 18 February2011, he was found to be non-deployable as a result of hismedical condition. 
As a result, he was separated from theReserves as being medically unfit for a condition not acquired inthe line of duty. 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is atExhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant is a former member of the United States Air ForceReserve (USAFR) who served in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). 

While serving on an active duty tour from 4 April 2010 through30 September 2010, the applicant was admitted to a local hospitalwith 
a headache and blurred vision. He was discharged on8 September 2010 without diagnosis. A neurology consult obtained 


at that time revealed consideration that his condition was caused 
by medication, although an MRI did reveal areas of old infarct.
A line of duty (LOD) was submitted and he was found in the LODfor this acute episode for which he was hospitalized in order 
toensure his hospital costs were covered. 

In February 2011, the applicant was again on a short tour ofactive duty from 7 February 2011 through 14 February 2011. On 
8 February 2011, the applicant was admitted to a local hospital 
for left hand numbness. He was diagnosed with acute recurrentischemic cardio vascular accident (CVA). A CT at the time of 
admission revealed atrophy and small vessel disease consistentwith age as well as an old right MCA infarct. The applicant 
was maintained on orders to undergo medical evaluation and follow-up.
An LOD was submitted for recurrent CVA, which was found asexisted prior to service (EPTS)-LOD not applicable. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


AFRC/SG recommends denial. SG states that to find the 
applicant’s underlying cause of his condition to be in the LOD isnot reasonable given he had evidence of recurrent, pre-existingdisease. 
There is no question the applicant was in status at thetime of his two episodes of transient infarct. Both events,
including hospitalization and work-up, were the responsibility ofthe Air Force. However the underlying disease process is longstanding 
and not related to duty. 

The complete SG evaluation is at Exhibit B. 


COUNSEL'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


No entity in the Air Force is more member hostile than AFRC. 
AFRC’s denial of LOD status is a recurring theme. There is no 
proof, as suggested in the advisory opinion, that the “underlying 
disease process is long-standing and not related to duty.” There 
is no legal requirement that a condition be “related to duty.” 
It merely has to occur while the member is entitled to basic pay. 
During these episodes, the applicant was entitled to basic pay. 
To the extent the applicant’s condition was EPTS, the fact does 
not mitigate the actual unfitting events occurred on active duty. 
Since the applicant did not meet retention standards while on 
active duty, an MEB should have been initiated. The applicant 
deserves an MEB as the acute events which rendered him unfit for 
duty occurred while he was on active duty. 


The counsel’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit D. 


2 



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. After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record, we see no evidence of 
error or impropriety in the LOD process and are not persuaded by 
the applicant’s contentions, that he has been the victim of an 
injustice. It appears the applicant’s medical case was properly 
evaluated under the appropriate Air Force regulations, which 
implement the law. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
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 counsel asserts the applicant is entitled to an 
MEB, the preponderance of evidence of record suggests the 
applicant’s predisposition for strokes and his military service 
were unrelated and the mere fact that at least one stroke 
resulted in his disqualification for continued service was likely 
considered insufficient to establish a casual or aggravating 
relationship with military service. We are not unsympathetic 
toward the applicant; however, evidence has not been presented 
which would lead us to believe that the determination of EPTS-LOD 
not applicable for recurrent CVA was erroneous or unjust. 
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. 


3 



The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-02176 in Executive Session on 23 January 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


__________________, Panel Chair 
__________________, Member 
__________________, Member 


The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-02176: 


Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/SG, dated 25 Jun 12. 
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 12. 
Exhibit D. Letter, Counsel, dated 30 Jul 12. 


________________________ 
Panel Chair 


4