AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PRPOCEEDINGS 

 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02228 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
She  be  permanently  retired  by  reason  of  physical  disability, 
rather  than  returned  to  duty.    (Submitted  amended  request  by 
letter dated, 15 February 2013).   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
Her  TDRL  re-evaluation  was  improperly  conducted  and  she  should 
have  been  medically  retired,  rather  than  returned  to  duty.    In 
this respect, she contends the following: 
 
1.  On 3 May 2011, she was seen at Wilford Hall Medical Center 
(WHMC)  for  her  TDRL  re-evaluation  examination.    When  she  tried 
to  give  her  doctor  her  medical  records  from  her  civilian 
cardiologist  he  stated  he  did  not  need  them  because  he  had 
copies from her previous TDRL evaluation in September 2007, and 
was going to mirror that evaluation.   
 
2.  Her evaluation contained erroneous statements so she emailed 
AFPC/DPSDD  (Temporary  Disability  Retirement  Branch)  regarding 
the errors.  However, no changes were made.  
 
3.  After her examination she signed her orders and asked if she 
could  leave  her  medical  records  so  they  could  be  given  to  the 
board.    In  November  2011,  she  received  her  medical  records  in 
the  mail;  however,  the  package  was  not  opened  because  it  was 
sealed the way she had left it.   
 
4.  Her  evaluation  was  done  differently  than  the  one  in  2007.  
She  feels  it  was  rushed  and  improperly  completed.    The  doctor 
noted she had anxiety and it was also noted on the AF Form 356, 
Findings  and  Recommended  Disposition  USAF  Physical  Evaluation 
Board.    She  does  not  have  anxiety  and  nowhere  has  this  been 
noted from her other doctors.   
 
5.  In July 2011, when she received her findings she called WHMC 
and  spoke  with  a  senior  airman  who  informed  her  that  all  her 
records were reviewed and if she had new documentation she could 
appeal the decision and request a formal hearing.  She did not 
have any new evidence and concurred with the findings.  This was 
one of the worst decisions she ever made.  She should have non-

 

 

 
concurred  and  requested  a  Formal  Physical  Evaluation  Board 
(FPEB) hearing. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On  24  January  2001,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air 
Force.   
 
On 9 February 2006, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened to 
consider  the  applicant  for  continued  active  duty.    The  board 
recommended  the  applicant  be  referred  to  an  Informal  Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB) based on the diagnoses of Ectopic Atrial 
Rhythm and Spontaneous Atrial Tachycardia.  On 14 February 2006, 
the  applicant  was  informed  of  the  findings  and  recommendations 
of  the  board  and  did  not  provide  a  letter  of  exception  or 
rebuttal. 
 
On  8  March  2006,  the  IPEB  reviewed  the  case  and  found  the 
applicant unfit and recommended her placement on the TDRL with a 
30 percent disability rating in accordance with (IAW) Department 
of Defense (DoD) and Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities  (VASRD)  guidelines.    The  IPEB  noted  that  she  had 
declined further “ablation surgery.”  
 
On  9  March  2006,  the  applicant  concurred  with  the  findings  and 
recommended  disposition  of  the  IPEB.    On  10  Mar  06,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council  (SAFPC)  directed 
the applicant’s name be placed on the TDRL.  On 26 May 06, the 
applicant  was  placed  on  the  TDRL  with  a  compensable  disability 
rating of 30 percent.  She was credited with five years and four 
months active duty service for retirement. 
 
On  3  October  2006,  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  granted 
the  applicant  service-connection  for  Cardiac  Dysarrhythmia  with 
Supraventricular  Tachycardia  with  a  30  percent  disability 
rating.  
 
On  19  February  2008,  the  applicant  underwent  an  IPEB  TDRL 
reevaluation.    The  IPEB  found  the  applicant  fit  for  duty  and 
recommended removal from the TDRL and return to duty.  The IPEB 
noted  “your  medical  condition  has  stabilized  and  no  longer 
prevents you from performing duties commensurate with your rank 
and grade.  Since your ablation, you have been asymptomatic with 
no  further  palpitations,  loss  of  consciousness,  syncope,  chest 
pain,  or  dyspnea.    Your  echocardiogram  showed  no  significant 
abnormalities.” 
 
On  20  February  2008,  the  applicant  concurred  with  the  findings 
of  the  IPEB.    On  4  April  2008,  SAFPC  directed  the  applicant’s 

 

2 

 

 

 
name  be  removed  from  the  TDRL  and  she  be  discharged  without 
benefits.    On  24  April  2008,  the  applicant’s  name  was  removed 
from  the  TDRL  and  she  was  discharged  in  the  grade  of  senior 
airman without entitlement to disability severance pay and given 
the option.  
 
On 27 April 2009, a MEB convened to consider the applicant for 
continued  active  duty.    The  board  recommended  the  applicant  be 
referred  to  an  IPEB  for  Palpitations.    On  7  May  2009,  the 
applicant  was  informed  of  the  findings  and  recommendations  of 
the board.   
 
On 2 July 2009, the IPEB again reviewed the case and found the 
applicant  unfit  and  recommended  discharge  with  severance  pay 
with  a  10  percent  disability  rating  IAW  DoD  and  VASRD 
guidelines.  The IPEB noted “your medical condition prevents you 
from  reasonably  performing  the  duties  of  your  office,  grade, 
rank or rating.”  On 13 Jul 09, the applicant non-concurred with 
the  findings  and  recommended  disposition  of  the  IPEB  and 
requested a formal hearing with counsel.   
 
On  24  September  2009,  the  applicant  requested  a  Summary 
Adjudication of her case contending she was unfit for continued 
military  service  due  to  supraventricular  tachycardia  and  that 
her  condition  is  best  rated  at  a  30  percent  disability  rating 
under  VASRD  section  7010  due  to  more  than  four  episodes  of 
supraventricular  tachycardia  documented  by  her  Holter  monitor 
per year and permanent retirement.   
 
On 28 September 2009, based on a review of the medical evidence, 
the  FPEB  determined  her  condition  was  unstable  and  recommended 
placement  on  the  TDRL  with  a  30  percent  disability  rating  IAW 
DoD  and  VASRD  guidelines.    The  applicant  concurred  with  the 
findings and recommend disposition of the FPEB.   
 
On  20  October  2009,  SAFPC  directed  the  applicant’s  name  be 
placed on the TDRL.  On 17 Dec 09, the applicant was placed on 
the TDRL with a compensable disability rating of 30 percent.     
 
In  a  letter  dated  21  April  2011,  the  applicant’s  cardiologist 
noted  “she  has  been  symptom  free  for  over  a  year  and  has 
undergone  noninvasive  evaluation  to  assess  her  current 
cardiovascular  status  in  hopes  of  returning  to  active  duty.    A 
recent  Holter  monitor  showed  normal  sinus  rhythm  and  ectopic 
atrial rhythm with an overall preserved heart rate.  This was a 
24-hour  Holter  monitor  and  was  noted  that  patient  exercised 
twice during the 24-hours.  She underwent stress testing to her 
predicated max heart rate of approximately 200 beats per minute, 
without symptoms, ischemic changes or arrhythmia induction.”  
 
On  19  July  2011,  an  IPEB  found  the  applicant  unfit  and 
recommended  discharge  with  severance  pay  with  a  10  percent 
disability rating IAW DoD and VASRD guidelines.  The IPEB noted 
“the  applicant’s  condition  had  improved  since  being  placed  on 

 

3 

 

 

on 

any 

of 

 

her 

tacharrhythmias 

 
the TDRL and appears to have stabilized.  She continues to have 
symptomatic  premature  ventricular  contractions  (PVCs),  to 
include  dyspnea  and  anxiety.    However,  there  is  no  evidence  of 
sustained 
telemetry 
monitoring/Holter,  and  her  symptoms  correlate  with  PVCs  and 
occasional sinus tachycardia at low rates.”  The IPEB also noted 
“her  condition  impacts  her  ability  to  deploy  and  serve  in 
overseas/remote  assignments,  which  is  not  compatible  with  the 
fundamental expectations of military service.”   
 
On  25  July  2011,  the  applicant  concurred  with  the  recommended 
findings.  On 2 August 2011, SAFPC directed the applicant’s name 
be  removed  from  the  TDRL  and  that  she  be  discharged  with 
severance  pay.    On  21  August  2011,  the  applicant  was  removed 
from the TDRL and discharged in the grade of staff sergeant by 
reason  of  physical  disability,  with  entitlement  to  10  percent 
severance  pay.    She  was  credited  with  10  years,  6  months  and 
26 days of active duty service.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSD  defers  to  the  Board  to  determine  if  the  medical 
evidence  submitted  indicates  the  applicant  should  have  been 
removed from the TDRL-Fit.   
 
DPSD states the preponderance of the evidence reflects no error 
or injustice occurred during the disability process. 
 
The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSOA makes no recommendation.  DPSOA states the applicant 
was given an erroneous reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4K, 
which denotes “medically disqualified for continued service, or 
the airman is pending evaluation by MEB/PEB” on her DD Form 214, 
Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty  for  the 
period ending 25 May 2006.  The correct RE code should have been 
2Q,  which  denotes  “personnel  medically  retired  or  discharged.”  
The  applicant’s  DD  Form  214  will  be  corrected  unless  directed 
otherwise by the Board. 
 
DPSOA  states  the  applicant’s  DD  Form  214  for  the  period  ending 
16 Dec 09, reflects the correct RE code of 2Q. 
 
The complete DPSOA evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
In  a  letter  dated  10  Nov  12,  the  applicant  reiterates  her 
original  contentions.    She  feels  her  TDRL  evaluation  on  3  May 

 

4 

 

 
2011,  was  mishandled,  she  has  provided  numerous  reasons  as  to 
why, and evidence to support her claim.   
 
 
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of her request to 
be  returned  to  duty.    The  Medical  Consultant  states  the 
applicant has been placed twice on the TDRL, the first following 
which she was returned to duty, only to experience a recurrence 
of  symptoms  despite  having  received  medical  and  surgical 
ablative  treatment.    Although  the  applicant  again  denies 
experiencing  shortness  of  breath,  palpitations  and  fainting 
spells;  and  has  recently  obtained  an  evaluation  which 
demonstrated  normal  cardiac  function  on  stress  testing,  the 
Medical Consultant opines there remains an undefined risk for an 
unexpected  recurrence  of  symptoms  that  pose  a  preventable  risk 
to  the  applicant’s  health  and  well-being  and  the  Air  Force 
mission.   
 
The Medical Consultant finds this particularly important in the 
context of the operational conditions confronting members of all 
Military  Departments;  and  sparing  no  particular  Service 
component  or  career  field.    Moreover,  after  consulting  DoD 
Instruction  (DoDI)  6130.03,  Medical  Standards  for  Appointment, 
Enlistment,  or  Induction  in  the  Military  Service,  it  is  noted 
that  “History  of  supraventricular  tachycardia,  History  of 
recurrent  atrial  fibrillation  or  flutter”  is  disqualifying.  
Nevertheless,  “supraventricular  tachycardia  associated  with  an 
identifiable  reversible  cause  and  no  recurrence  during  the 
preceding  two  years  while  off  all  medications  “does”  meet  the 
standard.”    The  memorandum  from  the  applicant’s  cardiologist, 
dated  21  April  2011,  suggests  the  applicant  could  qualify  for 
service  entry,  if  she  has  remained  without  recurrence  and  off 
all  medications,  as  of  11  April  2013.    Again,  the  Medical 
Consultant opines the collective unknown health risks, uncertain 
return  on  investment  in  retraining,  and  liability  of  the  Air 
Force  should  she  experience  an  unexpected  recurrence  of  her 
rhythm  disturbance  under  operational  conditions  without  access 
to  emergency  intervention,  outweigh  the  propriety  of  changing 
the  RE  code  and  returning  the  applicant  to  active  military 
service.  Therefore, the Medical Consultant opines the applicant 
has  not  met  the  burden  of  proof  of  an  error  or  injustice  that 
warrants the desired change of the record.   
 
The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit 
G. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

5 

 

 

 
 
 
 
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
On 15 Feb 13, by letter, the applicant amended her request and 
now  ask  to  be  medically  retired  instead  of  being  returned  to 
duty.    The  applicant  states  the  DVA  granted  her  service-
connection  for  Cardiac  Dysarrhythmia  with  Supraventricular 
Tachycardia with a 30 percent disability rating; therefore, she 
qualifies for a medical retirement.   
 
In  further  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a 
personal statement, copies of her Department of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA) disability rating letters, and various other documents in 
support of her request. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit H. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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.  The applicant 
amended  her  original  request  to  be  returned  to  active  duty  and 
now  requests  she  be  medically  retired.    We  took  notice  of  the 
applicant’s  complete  submission,  to  include  her  rebuttal 
comments in judging the merits of the case and do not find that 
it  supports  a  change  in  her  military  record.    While  the 
applicant was granted a 30 percent disability rating for Cardiac 
Dysarrhythmia  with  Supraventricular  Tachycardia  by  the  DVA  and 
now  believes  she  should  be  given  an  appropriate  rating  by  the 
Air Force to entitle her to a medical retirement.  We disagree.  
In  this  respect,  we  note,  the  Military  Disability  Evaluation 
System (MDES) only offers compensation for the medical condition 
that is the cause for career termination; and then only to the 
degree of impairment present at the time of final disposition or 
military  separation.    Conversely,  the  Department  of  Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) operates under a separate set of laws which takes 
into  account  the  fact  that  a  person  can  acquire  physical 
conditions during military service that, although not unfitting 
at  the  time  of  separation,  may  later  progress  in  severity  and 
alter  the  individual's  lifestyle  and  future  employability.  
Therefore,  the  fact  that  since  her  discharge  she  received  a  30 
percent  disability  rating  from  the  DVA  is  not  determinative  of 
her level of impairment at the time of her release from active 
duty.    In  view  of  the  above  and  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to 

 

6 

 

 

 

 
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-2012-02228  in  Executive  Session  on  7  March  2013  and 
15 March 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                   29 Jan 13. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Military Master Personnel Records 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 15 Jun 12. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 11 Sept 12, w/atch. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Oct 12.  
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Nov 12. 
Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated  
Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 31 Jan 13. 
Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Feb 13, w/atchs. 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 

 
Panel Chair 

 
 
 

   
   
   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

7