Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04351
Original file (BC-2012-04351.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04351 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her records be corrected to reflect that her diagnosis of asthma 
be removed, she be found fit for duty, removed from all 
restrictions, returned to duty, and allowed to reenter the 
military in the Nurse Corps as a Second Lieutenant. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was misdiagnosed with asthma and her restrictions should be 
removed so that she may enter into the Nurse Corps. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate she enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 19 Jul 95. 

 

On 29 Oct 12, the applicant was permanently retired for physical 
disability in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) with a 
combined compensable disability rating of 30 percent. She was 
credited with 17 years, 3 months, and 10 days of total active 
service. 

 

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: 

 

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial, indicating that no error or 
injustice occurred during the disability process. On 24 Apr 12, 
an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found the applicant 


unfit for duty caused by asthma. The Board recommended 
permanent retirement with a disability rating of 30 percent in 
accordance with the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities (VASRD) guidelines. On 9 May 12, the applicant 
non-concurred with the findings and recommendations of the IPEB 
and requested a formal hearing with counsel. 

 

On 15 Jun 12, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) 
reviewed her case for asthma and also found her to be unfit for 
duty. The FPEB upheld the IPEB findings and recommended 
permanent retirement with a 30 percent disability rating. 

 

On 18 Jun 12, the applicant appealed her case for review by the 
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC). On 7 Sep 
12, SAFPC directed the applicant be permanently retired with a 
disability rating of 30 percent. 

 

The applicant’s submission includes no new medical evidence that 
has not already been seen by the previous boards. In accordance 
with AFI 48-123, paragraph 5.3.6.5, asthma, recurrent bronchial 
spasm, or reactive airway disease are all boardable conditions. 
Based on the review of the medical board, asthma is the most 
appropriate diagnosis under code 6602. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant disagrees with the board’s assessment of her 
diagnosis of asthma. The University of Colorado originally 
diagnosed her with asthma in March 2009 primarily by a false 
family history of illness. She provided health history signed 
by the provider indicating no acknowledgement of such family 
history of asthma or any lifelong dyspnea, which was stated in 
her narrative summary at each board. Her military career was 
terminated due to the negligence of providers to include a lack 
of proper work up and data entry errors and the overuse of 
steroids, which interfered with her immune system. Her 
permanent retirement was done wrong and she would like to return 
to duty without restrictions. 

 

A complete copy of the Applicant’s response 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 an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including her 
arguments in response to the advisory opinions rendered in this 
case, in judging the merits of the case; however, 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 the applicant’s contentions are duly noted, 
we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to 
substitute our judgment for that of the Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB), Formal Physical Evaluation Board 
(FPEB), and Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC). Therefore, 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-2012-04351 in Executive Session on 14 May 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 17 Jan 13. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Mar 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00105

    Original file (BC-2013-00105.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 16 Jun 10, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) reviewed the case file and medical records and also recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent for diagnosis of POTS using VASRD code 8299-8210. Her condition has not changed in severity, the DVA made their rating by correctly applying the laws for analogous ratings. In this respect, the applicant is requesting that her medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement based on the 80 percent...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00711

    Original file (BC 2013 00711.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    After being discharged, he received a service-connected disability rating of 30 percent for Bipolar Disorder from the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA). Under Title 10, United States Code (USC), Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a member’s condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01398

    Original file (BC 2013 01398.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The IPEB noted she was pending surgery and granted her a 30 percent disability rating. However, at the time of the TDRL reevaluation, the applicant had not had the surgery and her physicians at the time were no longer recommending surgery. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation, with attachments, is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02024

    Original file (BC 2013 02024.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 Feb 02, IPEB reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended discharge under other than Chapter 61, 10 USC, noting the applicant’s medical condition existed prior to service (EPTS) and had not been permanently aggravated by military service. The applicant contends her medical conditions were incurred while on active duty and should be considered “in line of duty” based on the service connection decision by the DVA. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01951

    Original file (BC-2013-01951.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 27 July 2007, the IPEB found her unfit for further military service and recommended permanent retirement with a disability rating of 50 percent for major depressive disorder, social and industrial adaptability impairment: considerable. Under Title 10, USC, Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a member’s condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating. Further, it must be noted the USAF disability boards must rate...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02758

    Original file (BC-2006-02758.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) recommended her permanent retirement in 2006, she appeared before a formal PEB (FPEB), who recommended her return to duty. Based on the medical evidence and the applicant’s testimony, the FPEB recommended that she be returned to duty. Due to the wide variance between the IPEB’s unfit finding and recommendation that she be permanently retired with a compensable rating of 30 percent and the FPEB’s finding her fit for duty and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04590

    Original file (BC-2010-04590.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04590 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 20 percent disability rating he received for his diabetes be increased to 40 percent and he be medically retired with a 40 percent disability rating. The USAF disability boards must rate disabilities based on the service member’s condition at the time...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00395

    Original file (BC 2014 00395.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00395 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement order be corrected to reflect his disabilities were received in the line of duty as the direct result of armed conflict, caused by an instrumentality of war, incurred in the line of duty during a period of war, or were the direct result of a combat related injury. While we note the applicant’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02126

    Original file (BC 2014 02126.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice noting the applicant underwent his first periodic reexamination and was found fit and was removed from TDRL. On 13 Mar 13, the applicant was removed from the TDRL with the reentry code of 3K which allows the service member to be eligible to enlist in any branch of the service. If the medical condition has improved or stabilized, the service member could receive permanent disability...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01763

    Original file (BC-2013-01763.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    SAFPC noted the applicant’s medical record reflected insufficient evidence to find her conditions were separately unfitting or resulted in her inability to perform her duties or deploy. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the evaluations and states the military is behind the curve in understanding her condition and rating...