AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00570 
COUNSEL:    
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
      
 
     
 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His official records be corrected to show that he was medically 
retired due to a Service connected disability.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
His  discharge  was  improper  because,  per  Air  Force  Regulations, 
his  is  totally  disabled,  yet  he  was  denied  an  evaluation  by  a 
Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  or  Physical  Evaluation  Board 
(PEB) that would have resulted in his being retired for medical 
reasons.    He  felt  pressured  by  his  leadership  into  retiring 
before  his  medical  issues  were  resolved.    He  requested  a  full 
evaluation  by  the  Office  of  the  Inspector  General  and  a  full 
congressional intervention, but nothing was done in regard to an 
MEB.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  initially  entered  the  U.S.  Army  on  2  Mar  88, 
separated  on  25  Feb  94,  and  entered  the  Puerto  Rico  Army 
National Guard (ARNG) on 6 Dec 94.  
 
The applicant transferred to the Puerto Rico Air National Guard 
(PRANG) on 2 Mar 99. 
 
On 16 Sep 08, the applicant received a DA Form 2173,  Statement 
of  Medical  Examination  and  Duty  Status,  recommending  that  his 
“Moderate Sleep Apnea” be considered in the line of duty.  This 
form was never completed/signed.   
 
The applicant voluntarily retired on 30 Apr 11, was furnished an 
Honorable Discharge Certificate, and was credited with 20 years 
15 days of active service.   
 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described  in  the  letter  prepared  by  the  Air  Force  office  of 
primary responsibility, which is included at Exhibit C.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial,  indicating 
there  is  no  evidence  of  an  error  or  injustice.    The  applicant 
was  indeed  evaluated  and  treated  for  a  number  of  medical 
ailments,  most  if  not  all  of  which  were  addressed  either 
surgically  [hernia  repairs,  uvuloplasty]  or  medically  [physical 
therapy,  pain  modulating  medications]  through  specialty 
consultations and counseling; however, none of these conditions 
was  considered  duty-limiting  to  the  extent  [in  duration, 
severity,  or  impact  upon  the  performance  of  duties]  that 
warranted  a  medical  reason  for  release  from  military  service.  
Although  the  applicant  raised  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
threshold  for  conducting  an  MEB  was  met  and/or  later  ignored, 
what  is  very  clear  from  the  record  is  the  applicant  received 
timely  evaluations  and  referrals  for  all  of  his  presented 
medical complaints.  Among those conditions, the single one the 
record  indicates  may  have  warranted  MEB  action  is  the  case  of 
Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA).  However, it should be noted that 
at  or  about  the  time  of  the  applicant’s  release  from  military 
service  attitudes  regarding  fitness  for  duty  for  individuals 
with OSA who required Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) 
had  changed  dramatically  to  the  extent  that  the  condition 
was/and  is  no  longer  considered  career-ending;  and  in  the 
applicant’s case would likely have resulted in retention with a 
waiver  or  an  assignment  limitation  code.    Although  first 
diagnosed with OSA while on active orders in 2008, this does not 
automatically  establish  a  condition  with  or  permanent 
aggravation by military service; regardless if serving during a 
period of 31 days or more at the time of diagnosis.  Again, no 
evidence  is  provided  to  indicate  either  the  applicant’s  OSA  or 
his  diabetes  was  found  to  be  in  the  line  of  duty.    Addressing 
the 
medical 
separation/retirement, the military DES, established to maintain 
a fit and vital force, can by law, under Title 10, United States 
Code  (U.S.C.),  only  offer  compensation  for  those  service 
incurred [or permanently aggravated] 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  time  of  separation 
and  not  based  upon  future  occurrences.    Department  of  Defense 
Instruction  (DoDI),  Physical  Disability  Evaluation,  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.”  
In the case under review, it could not be established that the 
applicant  was  unable  to  reasonably  perform  his  military  duties 

applicant’s 

for 

implicit 

desire 

 
2 

due  to  one  or  more  medical  conditions  during  his  military 
service.    Moreover,  under  paragraph  E3.P3.3.3.,  it  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  duties.”  
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.“    The 
Medical  Consultant  found  no  medical  condition  that  established 
(or  should  have  established)  a  cause  and  effect  relationship 
with  the  termination  of  the  applicant’s  service  or  was  an 
alternative  reason  for  his  release  from  military  service.  
Finally, although the applicant was evaluated and treated for a 
number  of  episodic  illnesses  or  injuries  during  his  military 
service,  none  were  shown  to  have  interfered  with  his  military 
service  to  the  extent  or  duration  that  warranted  placement  on 
Medical Hold or for an MEB and processing through the DES.  The 
applicant  has  not  met  the  burden  of  proof  that  warrants  the 
desired change of the record.  
 
A complete copy of the complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation 
is at Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
A  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the 
applicant on 8 Jan 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  As 
of  this  date,  no  response  has  been  received  by  this  office 
(Exhibit D). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  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  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  and  adopt  his 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been  the  victim  of  an  error  of  injustice.    Therefore,  in  the 
absence an evidence establishing an unfitting medical condition 

 
3 

prior to his retirement, 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  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-2012-00570  in  Executive  Session  on  20  Feb  13,  under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,  
            dated 4 Jan 13. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 8 Jan 13. 

 The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
                                   Panel Chair 
 

 
4