RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01109
                        COUNSEL:  NONE
		        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. His records be corrected to reflect that he was medically 
retired in the grade of captain (O-3) for unfitting and 
disqualifying medical conditions.  

2. His medical retirement be combat related in order to qualify 
for Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC).  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force failed to process him through the Disability 
Evaluation System (DES) as required by law and governing 
regulations for disqualifying medical conditions of exercise 
induced asthma, cold-injury residuals and combat related Post 
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) despite a request for a Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB) and a narrative summary from his active 
duty pulmonologist.  

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated him at 80 percent 
and confirmed his diagnosis of exercise induced asthma and PTSD 
are service connected.  He should have been medically retired 
with a combined rating of 80 percent In Accordance With (IAW) 
the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities 
(VASRD). 

He was twice non-selected for promotion to the grade of major 
(O-4) and was separated instead of being processed through the 
DES.  

An MEB would have referred him to the Physical Evaluation Board 
(PEB) which would have recommended him for a disability rating 
of at least 30 percent and a medical retirement.  

He would have requested Continuation of Active Duty (COAD) which 
allows military members with at least 15 years but less than   
20 years of active duty service who incurred a disability from 
combat operations or terrorism to remain on active duty to 
qualify for military retirement.  

He has been the victim of an error or injustice that warrants 
corrective action and he requests the Board to override an 
administrative separation and permanently medically retire him 
due to his unfitting conditions.  

He references several BCMR and a Physical Disability Board of 
Review (PDBR) Records of Proceedings (ROP) as precedence to 
support his request for a medical retirement.    

In support of his requests, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, statement from his spouse, copies of his DVA rating 
information, medical documents and other various documents 
associated with his request.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 Jun 1999, the applicant entered this period of active duty 
as a commissioned officer.

He received a referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the 
period of 13 Aug 2002 to 12 Aug 2003.  The specific reason for 
the referral OPR was a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for threatening 
and intimidating subordinates. The applicant submitted a 
rebuttal to the OPR.  

According to a Medical Narrative Summary, dated, 15 Jun      
2004, the applicant presented for an MEB and was diagnosed with 
mild intermittent asthma which appeared to be exercise related.  
The physician recommended the applicant undergo an MEB given the 
diagnosis of asthma with a P4T profile which denotes “not 
worldwide qualified.” He was prescribed a metered dose inhaler 
as needed and advised to resume aerobic exercise with a goal of 
at least 3 sessions per week.  Although his medical provider 
made the MEB and profile recommendations, there is no evidence 
his commander approved the recommendations which were made less 
than three months before his date of separation.   

On 31 Aug 2004, he was released from active duty with a 
narrative reason for separation of “Non-Selection, Permanent 
Promotion.”  

The applicant served 5 years, 2 months and 18 days as a 
commissioned officer.  He served a combined total of 15 years 
and 7 months on active duty.    

According to ARPC/DPPS letter, dated 13 Jul 2009, the applicant 
was eliminated from the Inactive Status List Reserve Section 
(ISLRS).  Although time spent in ISLRS counts toward 
commissioned service time, it is not considered satisfactory 
service toward a reserve retirement.  Because the applicant did 
not complete 20 years of active service, he is not eligible for 
a Reserve retirement.  

Effective 11 May 2011, the applicant was honorably discharged 
from all appointments in the United States Air Force.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The burden of 
proof of error or injustice has not been sufficiently met to 
warrant the desired retroactive change of the record; 
particularly if based upon the false assumption that a clinical 
social worker, assigned to a medical center, with mild exercise-
induced asthma, with a demonstrated ability to run two miles, 
and no proven diminution in job performance due to a medical 
condition would have been found unfit by a PEB, if not already 
separating for a non-disability reason.   

The applicant was diagnosed and treated for exercise-induced 
asthma at least one year prior, although reporting possible 
symptoms up to three years prior, to his release from active 
military service; however, there are no profile restrictions 
supplied to cover this period.  There is only the single P4T 
profile in the narrative summary, dated 15 Jun 2004, which was 
not transposed onto or validated by a Duty Limiting Condition 
Report initiated or approved by either the Chief of the Medical 
Staff, Department Chair, or Chief of Aerospace Medicine.  
Nevertheless, the BCMR Medical Consultant acknowledges that 
asthma or airway hyper-responsiveness is a disqualifying 
condition under Air Force Instruction 48-123, Medical 
Examinations and Standards, and that the condition may pose an 
unreasonable health and mission risk in a deployed environment; 
albeit not universally career ending when retention under an 
Assignment Limitation Code (ALC) is warranted.  

The applicant and the Board are reminded that any given 
diagnosis, although listed as disqualifying under AFI 48-123, 
does not automatically render an individual unfit for continued 
military service, as would be determined by a Physical 
Evaluation Board (PEB).  Attention to the following extracts 
from Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.38, 
paragraphs E3.P3.3.3 and E3.P3.3.4, respectively, may help 
explain why. Adequate Performance Until Referral: "If the 
evidence establishes that the Service member adequately 
performed his or her duties until the time the Service member 
was referred for physical evaluation [in this case possibly or 
Jul/Aug 2004], the member may be considered fit for duty even 
though medical evidence indicates questionable physical ability 
to continue to perform duty." Cause and Effect Relationship: 
"Regardless of the presence of illness or injury, inadequate 
performance of duty, by itself, shall not be considered as 
evidence of unfitness due to physical disability unless it is 
established that there is a cause and effect relationship 
between the two factors." No service evidence is provided to 
indicate the applicant was not performing duties commensurate 
with his office, grade, rank, or rating due to asthma; or any of 
his other medical conditions; until the single "P4T" profile 
referenced in the NARSUM of 30 July 2004.  The Medical 
Consultant acknowledges there was, nevertheless, an option for 
placing the applicant on Medical Hold to proceed with the DES 
and possible subsequent PEB action, under provisions of AFI 36-
3212.  Why this was not done is not clear in the record 
supplied.  The BCMR Medical Consultant can only speculate that 
medical officials did not believe that the asthma warranted 
processing through the DES, if he was not already separating for 
a non-disability reason.  The applicant's motivation to serve 
should also not go unnoticed in this scenario, as he indeed 
proposed retention if found unfit under the Limited Assignment 
Status (LAS) provision in AFI 36-3212 available at the time.  In 
the past members could be retained under LAS who have at least 
15, but less than 20 years of service, when the needs of the Air 
Force dictated their retention even though found unfit. However, 
IAW AFI 36-3212, paragraph 6.1 , Basic Eligibility, members who 
have some type of non-disability retirement or separation 
pending [would not have been] eligible for LAS, notwithstanding 
the current attention to recruitment/retention of mental health 
providers.  The applicant and the Board are reminded that the 
DES established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can 
by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U .S.C.), only offer 
compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries 
which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active 
service and were the cause for career termination; and then only 
for the degree of impairment present at the "snap shot" time of 
separation and not based on future occurrences. Department of 
Defense Instruction 1332.32, Physical Disability Evaluation, 
Enclosure 3, Part 3, Standards For Determining Unfitness Due To 
Physical Disability Or Medical Disqualification, paragraph 
E3.P3.2.1, reads:" A Service member shall be considered unfit 
when the evidence establishes that the member, due to physical 
disability, is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or 
her office, grade, rank, or rating (hereafter called duties) to 
include duties during a remaining period of Reserve obligation." 
The evidence does not reflect the applicant was unable to 
perform his duties due to a medical condition. On the other 
hand, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, 
U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) is authorized to offer compensation for any 
medical condition determined service incurred, e.g., the 
applicant's PTSD, without regard to [and independent of] its 
demonstrated or proven adverse impact upon a service member's 
retainability, fitness to serve, or narrative reason for release 
from military service. With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C., 
which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow 
awarding compensation ratings for conditions with a nexus with 
military service. This is the reason why an individual can be 
found fit for release from active military service for one 
reason and yet sometime thereafter receive compensation ratings 
from the DVA for conditions found service-connected, but which 
were not proven militarily unfitting at the time of release from 
service. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic 
reevaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating 
awards (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a 
given service connected medical condition may vary (improve or 
worsen, affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the 
veteran.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit 
C.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He has over 15 years of service, to include his service as a 
prior enlisted combat veteran, which makes him eligible for the 
length of service retirement.   

The evidence in his medical records is unequivocal that he was 
diagnosed and treated for symptoms in 2003 while stationed at 
Langley Air Force Base (AFB), VA.  His healthcare provider never 
initiated a P4T profile or MEB to evaluate his condition and did 
not properly execute a disposition.  This grossly misrepresented 
his health and worldwide deployability status to his commanders.  
He is confident that had an MEB been conducted in 2003 when he 
was initially diagnosed with asthma, as required by governing 
law and AFI, he would have been referred to the PEB and be given 
a combined disability rating higher than 30 percent for his 
conditions, and with more than 15 years of active military 
service, he would have been medically retired.  He can only 
speculate that his health care provider did not champion his 
disqualifying condition by initiating a P4T profile and MEB 
because Langley AFB, an Air Combat Command (ACC) base with a 
high operations tempo needed every airman to be readily 
available for deployment.  Additionally, they were severely 
understaffed and manned at only 60 percent for mental health 
providers and he was the only Family Advocacy Officer (FAO) for 
a wing-level program. 

The preponderance of evidence shows that his medical condition 
was not completely considered at the time of his discharge and 
his MEB for asthma was stopped at the military treatment 
facility based presumably on the pending separation.  Therefore, 
his case should have been processed for “dual action” review and 
forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) which did not happen.

There is precedence that MEBs referred members to PEBs for 
diagnosis of mild, persistent asthma and PEBs recommended 
medical discharge/retirement based on the diagnosis.  

In the interest of justice he requests the Board correct his 
records to show he was found unfit and that he be medically 
retired in the grade of Captain (O-3) and that he be assessed as 
combat related in order to qualify for compensation under CRSC.  

The applicant states that at the time of his separation, he had 
no reliable counsel to advise him on his rights and options.  He 
was ill-advised and misled concerning his options and decisions   
and was not informed that he was eligible for a medical 
retirement rather than separation.  

The applicant’s completion submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/SG recommends denial.  The applicant has failed to provide 
any documentation that would allow SG to offer an opinion that 
would support the need for a MEB and recommends no change to his 
disability processing but defers to the Board to determine if 
the Air Force Personnel Center or the Air Force Disabilities 
Branch could better answer for the decisions of the Regular 
component.  His designation as a Reserve officer is solely based 
on his separation from the Regular component and placement into 
the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR).  A courtesy review of the 
medical documents provided does not support a level of 
disability that would prevent the applicant from performing his 
in-garrison work as a clinical social worker.  If his case was 
submitted to SGP for adjudication with the submitted documents, 
he would be returned to duty with an Assignment Limitation Code 
(ALC) C-3, not recommended for medical separation.  Any DVA 
disability rating is wholly separate from this action and not 
indicative of his ability to meet duty, rank, grade or rating 
requirements.  

The complete SG evaluation is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:  

He is confused by the recommendation of the command surgeon who 
advises no relief should be offered.  He has never served in an 
Air Force reserve unit and has no reserve medical records for 
him to base his recommendation on.  He provides another copy of 
his rebuttal, dated 28 May 2013, and is hopeful that this 
persuasive evidence will provide a compelling basis to grant a 
medical retirement.   

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit H. 

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant presents additional facts and 
evidence in response to the applicant’s rebuttal in an effort to 
facilitate an unbiased Board decision.  As a reminder, the 
applicant was involuntarily separated due to being twice 
deferred for promotion to the grade of major and notes he 
received a LOR and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) with 
markdowns in leadership on his final OPR.  Nevertheless, 
confounding this separation is evidence that the applicant had 
been diagnosed with exercise-induced asthma and had been under 
consideration for an MEB in 2004, a board which was not pursued.  
The question confronting the BCMR Medical Consultant and the 
Board is to determine whether this apparent failure to 
consummate the MEB, and to implicitly find him unfit, 
represented an error or injustice to him.  

The evidence shows he had a disqualifying medical condition, 
albeit characterized as “mild” over the final period of his 
service (2002 to 2004); noting his reported ability to run up to 
three to four miles as recent as his Mar 2004 clinic visit.  
Moreover, other than the applicant’s final OPR and the likely 
resultant of his non-selection for promotion, he had otherwise 
demonstrated the ability to perform his professional military 
duties unimpeded by his mild exercise-induced asthma.  

The applicant is correct regarding the health and mission risks 
this medical condition imposes under operational considerations.  
Although disqualifying under AFI 48-123, a diagnosis of asthma 
does not universally result in an unfit finding by a PEB.  In 
the applicant’s case, when collectively considering his 
occupation, Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), years of service, 
total duration of his symptoms without impediment to duty or a 
profile prohibiting worldwide qualification until the end of his 
career, his expressed desire and apparent ability to perform 
continued service and the “mild” characterization of his 
disease; circumstances are created under which a PEB might have 
also found him fit to return to duty; but not for his 
involuntary separation.  

Alternatively, had the applicant indeed completed a MEB in   
2004 and was found unfit by a PEB, considering he would have 
been concurrently the subject of an involuntary release from 
service, his case would have been referred to the Secretary of 
the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a final disposition; 
specifically, to decide which [medical versus administrative] 
was the appropriate basis for his release from service. The 
SAFPC would be confronted with identification of any causal or 
mitigating relationship between the applicant's medical 
condition and the reason for his administrative release from 
service in deciding the final disposition; of which the 
Consultant found none. However, the SAFPC would also likely 
consider the comparative gravity and duration of the applicant's 
medical condition viewed against the reason for his discharge; 
bearing in mind that each of the aforementioned scenarios are 
purely hypothetical for the Board's consideration.

The evidence of record is sufficient to have justified a MEB at 
or about the end of 2003, if not earlier; but notes that neither 
the applicant nor his providers pursued earlier introduction of 
worldwide duty restrictions.  Should the Board decide that an 
injustice occurred in the applicant’s case warranting a medical 
separation, then based upon his pulmonary function results, and 
the fact that he was prescribed an inhaled anti-inflammatory 
medication, he would have qualified for a medical retirement 
with a 30 percent disability rating under the VASRD code 6602.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit 
I.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He does not believe the Air Force meant to commit the wrong his 
records bear but he does believe he has been the victim of an 
error and injustice in the administrative processing of his 
discharge.  His rebuttal demonstrates the burden of proof of an 
error or injustice has been sufficiently met to warrant a 
favorable consideration and retroactive change of his records to 
permanent disability retirement.  

The legal guidance that airmen who have disabilities acquired in 
the line of duty be offered orders extending them until the 
disability is corrected, or completion of the DES was not 
followed.  Although AFI 48-123 states a diagnosis of asthma is 
an unfitting and disqualifying condition that is unacceptable 
for continued military service he was not evaluated by an MEB.  
If he would have been evaluated by an MEB, he would have been 
referred to the PEB and he would have been permanently retired 
for disability. Furthermore, because he was pending an 
administrative discharge, his case would have been processed for 
“dual action” and forwarded SAFPC.  The SAFPC would have likely 
found that his medical condition (combat related PTSD) may have 
influenced or mitigated his conduct that resulted in the LOR.  
In more than 15 years of decorated and honorable military 
service, this was the first and only time; he received an LOR 
and UIF.  In a similar BCMR case, the BCMR Medical Consultant 
states that it is plausible to view the pattern of behavior 
exhibited by the applicant as consistent with the beginnings of 
PTSD.  Receiving an LOR for actions outside of his normal 
functioning in more than 15 years of active military service and 
subsequent to combat duty in the Persian Gulf appears to have 
been consistent with characteristics associated with PTSD.

The BCMR Medical Consultant is contradicted in his statements 
because precedent is unequivocal that MEB’s have recommended 
applicants to an IPEB based on diagnosis of asthma, mild, 
persistent.  Moreover, FPEBs have overwhelmingly upheld the 
findings and he offers BCMR ROPs highlighting precedence to 
support his request for a medical retirement.    

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit K.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. After 
reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the 
applicant's records are in error or that he has been the victim 
of an injustice. In this respect, we note that during the 
applicant's military service, he was seen and treated for a 
variety of medical conditions.  He was subsequently diagnosed 
with asthma, cold injury residuals [of the extremities] and 
combat-related PTSD. The applicant states that the, Air Force 
violated regulations in failing to process him through the DES 
for his service incurred unfitting disqualifications. However, 
there is no documentation in the applicant's records showing 
that any of his medical conditions prevented him from performing 
his assigned duties.  Instead the evidence reflects that he was 
twice deferred for promotion to the grade of major and as a 
result was involuntarily separated IAW governing Air Force 
directives.  We also note that DoDI 1332.38, Physical Disability 
Evaluation, in effect at the time of the applicant's release 
from service paragraph E3.P3.3.3. states “If the evidence 
establishes that the Service member adequately performed his or 
her duties until the time the Service member was referred for 
physical evaluation, the member may be considered fit for duty 
even though medical evidence indicates questionable physical 
ability to continue to perform duty.” Further, paragraph 
E3.P3.3.4, states “Regardless of the presence of illness or 
injury, inadequate performance of duty, by itself, shall not be 
considered as evidence of unfitness due to physical disability 
unless it is established that there is a cause and effect 
relationship between the two factors.  Based on a thorough 
review of the evidence of record and noting the comments of the 
BCMR Medical Consultant that he found no relationship between 
the applicant's medical condition and his administrative release 
from service, it is our opinion that there was no error or 
injustice in the processing of his involuntary separation.   We 
note the BCMR Medical Consultant states that had the applicant 
indeed completed a MEB in 2004 and was found unfit by a PEB,  
his case would have been referred to SAFPC for a final 
disposition.  However we disagree.  While the applicant’s 
separation was involuntary, the evidence reflects that he was 
separated due to his two nonselections for promotion to the 
grade of major; therefore, we do not believe his case would have 
been processed as a dual action.  The applicant’s assertions 
that his combat related PTSD may have influenced or mitigated 
his conduct are duly noted, however, we do not find his 
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves sufficiently 
persuasive to override the evidence of record.  Although the 
applicant states that the DVA rated him at 80 percent and 
confirmed his diagnosis of exercised induced asthma and PTSD 
were service-connected, 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, in view of the forgoing the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has 
been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above 
and in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we 
find no basis to recommend granting any of the relief sought in 
this application.  

4.  The applicant also asserts, in essence, that relief is 
warranted based on precedence and cites several AFBCMR cases he 
believes supports his request.  However, we disagree.  Every 
case before this Board is considered on its own merit since the 
circumstances of each case are seldom identical.  After a 
careful review of the cases provided by the applicant we find 
all of them distinguishable from the applicant’s request as none 
of the cases are comparable.  Although, the applicant states 
that the IPEB has consistently recommended that other 
applicant’s be medically discharged, the evidence reflects that 
these applicants were determined unfit and referred to the MEB, 
whereas the applicant in this case was not.  Additionally, the 
applicant in the case under review requests a combat-related 
medical retirement in the grade of captain.  In contrast, the 
applicant’s in BC-2002-02199, BC-2007-00886, BC-2009-02501, BC-
2003-02027, BC-2007-00886 and BC-2002-01096, requested their 
records be corrected to show that they were fit and returned to 
active duty or allowed to re-enlist in the Air Force which are 
the complete opposite of the applicant’s request for a medical 
retirement.  Therefore, we do not find the cases he references 
supports his request for a medical retirement.  

5.  Although we are not bound by decisions of the Physical 
Disability Board, we reviewed PD2009-00221 and noted that the 
applicant in PD2009-00221 requested the Board increase her 
disability rating of 10 percent for asthma to 30 percent and the 
PDBR granted the applicant’s request.  We find that the decision 
in PD2009-0021 is distinguishable from the applicant’s case.  In 
this respect, we note that the applicant in PD2009-00221 was 
initially referred to the PEB for asthma, mild persistent and 
found unfit for continued military service and separated with a 
10 percent disability rating, whereas in the case before us, 
there is no evidence the he was unable to perform his duties due 
to a medical condition, rather the evidence reflects that he was 
involuntarily separated due to his two-time nonselections for 
promotion to the grade of major.  Moreover, the applicant in the 
current case is requesting that his record be corrected to show 
that he was medically retired whereas the applicant in 
PD200909221 requested an increase in her disability rating.  In 
view of the foregoing, we do not find that the case he 
references supports his request for a medical retirement.  

6. In BC-2006-01369, the applicant requested pay, allowances, 
and service credit from 7 Sep 2002 to 29 Apr 2005, reimbursement 
for attorney fees and back-pay for the years of lost promotion 
opportunities and expenses incurred as a result of not having 
health coverage as a reservist who was demobilized.  The Board 
partially approved the request because the applicant was 
unavailable for world-wide duty and the Air Force Reserve did 
not extend the applicant on active duty for evaluation by the 
Disability Evaluation System (DES).  In the case under review, 
the applicant is requesting a medical retirement.  Therefore, we 
do not find that this case is identical to the applicant’s or 
that it supports his request for a medical retirement.

7.  The cases noted below were all denied by the Board, as such, 
we do not find that any of the cases are identical to the 
applicant’s nor do they support his request for a medical 
retirement.  Nonetheless, the following is noted:

      In BC-2006-03835, the applicant requested his general 
discharge be changed to a medical discharge.  After careful 
review of the evidence, the Board agreed with SAFPC that they 
found no link between the applicant’s conduct and his asthma, 
therefore, the Board denied his request. 
      
      In BC-2007-00068, the applicant requested a review of the 
MEB which had found the applicant unfit with a disability rating 
of 20 percent.  The Board denied the applicant’s request citing 
they believed the SAFPC review of the completed MEB package was 
sufficient to make a fair and equitable decision on the case and 
that the applicant had not provided any new medical 
documentation to warrant another review of the MEB findings.  

      In BC-2005-01141, the applicant requested his disability 
discharge with a 10 percent disability rating be changed to a 
30 percent retirement based on his DVA rating.  The Board denied 
the applicant’s request agreeing with the BCMR Medical 
Consultant that the medical evidence, MEB, IPEB and FPEB 
supported a disability discharge with 10 percent disability 
rating and his conditions of chronic pansinusitus and seasonal 
allergic rhinitis were not considered compensable or ratable.  
      
      In BC-2004-03351, the applicant requested his discharge 
with severance pay rated at 10 percent be changed to a medical 
retirement with a rating of 30 percent.  The Board denied the 
applicant’s request stating they did not believe the disability 
processing and the rating assigned at final disposition were 
contrary to the governing Air Force instruction and the law.  
      
      With respect to BC-2004-02625, the applicant requested her 
10 percent disability rating when she was removed from the 
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) be changed to 
30 percent to qualify for medical retirement.  The Board denied 
the applicant’s request stating the evidence did not support a 
change to her disability rating.  
      
      With respect to BC-2005-01947, the applicant requested that 
her separation reason be changed to “Disability – Did not exist 
prior to service” and she receives severance pay.  The Board 
denied the applicant’s request citing the medical evidence 
supported the applicant’s discharge of “Disability – Existed 
prior to service, PEB – no severance pay.” 
      
      With respect to BC-2002-01740, we note the applicant in 
this case requested his RE Code 2Q which denotes “Medically 
Retired or Discharged” be changed to RE Code 3K which denotes 
“Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or AFBCMR  for Correction of 
Military Records when no other reenlistment eligibility code 
applies” stating he did not have an anxiety disorder.  In 2001, 
the applicant petitioned the BCMR to remove his diagnosis of 
asthma and the Board recommended that his reason for separation 
be changed from asthma to an anxiety disorder. 
      
8.  Although the preceding cases referenced by the applicant 
include asthma as a factor, we do not find that any of these 
cases are identical to the applicant’s and in our opinion they 
add no credence to his request for a medical retirement.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the applicant was 
treated differently than others similarly situated we find no 
equitable basis to grant any of the relief sought in this 
application. 

_______________________________________________________________

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-2013-01109 in Executive Session on 20 Feb 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
     
      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 May 2013.   
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 21 May 2013, w/atch.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 May 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit F.  Letter, AFRC/SG, dated 29 May 2013.
Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Jun 2013, w/atch.
Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated, 14 Jun 2013, w/atch.
Exhibit I.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 8 Oct 2013.
Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 9 Oct 2013, w/atch.
Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Oct 2013, w/atch.
      
      
      
      
      Panel Chair