RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00979 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Line of Duty (LOD) Determination, dated 16 November 2011, for 
allergic rhinitis and chronic sinusitis be changed from “Existed 
Prior to Service - Not Applicable” (EPTS/NA) to “In the Line of 
Duty” (ILOD) or “Existed Prior to Service – Aggravated” (EPTS/A). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was treated in a medical facility for sinusitis/rhinitis while 
deployed to Afghanistan. The sinusitis occurred over six months 
after he entered onto active duty. Given these facts alone, it 
is inconceivable why Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) thought it 
was appropriate to change the 10th Air Force Appointing 
Authority’s finding of ILOD and substituted the unsupported 
finding of EPTS/NA. There is not a single line on the AFRC IMT 
348, Informal line of Duty Determination, which justifies or 
explains what medical or factual evidence caused the AFRC Judge 
Advocate and Approving Authority to depart from the 10th Air 
Force Judge Advocate’s recommendation of EPTS/A or the 10th Air 
Force Appointing Authority’s recommendation of ILOD. 
Furthermore, there is no discussion or evidence of how his 
condition was found to be EPTS or that it was even considered for 
service aggravation. This was despite the inclusions of an 
article indicating the city of Kabul, by virtue of being a third 
world city located in a bowl surrounded by mountainous terrain, 
had a severe air pollution issue. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his 
Informal LOD Determination documentation, supporting medical 
documentation, and information papers concerning air quality in 
Afghanistan. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the United States Air Force 
Reserve (USAFR) who retired in the grade of colonel (O-6) 
effective 1 June 2011. He was deployed to Afghanistan from 


October 2010 through May 2011. While deployed, he was seen for 
Rhinitis and given Afrin. 

 

An Informal LOD determination was initiated on 25 May 2011 for 
the applicant’s condition of Allergic Rhinitis. It was 
recommended that his condition was “EPTS-Service Aggravated.” 
The Judge Staff Advocate concurred with the recommendation on 
11 July 2011. The appointing authority found the applicant’s 
condition of Rhinitis was ILOD and forwarded the applicant’s 
appeal to the AFRC LOD Board. On 16 November 2011, the LOD Board 
found the applicant’s condition to be “EPTS-LOD Not Applicable.” 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service records, are contained in the evaluation 
prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at 
Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/SG recommends denial. SG states that a finding of ILOD for 
the applicant’s chronic condition of Allergic Rhinitis was not 
substantiated by the medical records. His case was considered 
for service aggravation, which requires permanent worsening 
beyond baseline progression, but was also not substantiated by 
the medical records. SG indicates that while there is no doubt 
the air in many regions of Afghanistan can cause one to have a 
runny nose, permanent worsening beyond baseline after exposure is 
not supported in this case. 

 

The complete SG evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2910 requires AFRC medical 
officers to initiate a LOD determination in the event a Reserve 
member receives medical treatment. Paragraph 1.6 states that “an 
illness, injury, disease, or death sustained by a member in an 
active status is presumed to have occurred in the line of duty.” 
Paragraph 1.7 of the AFI states that this presumption can be 
rebutted if a medical officer diagnoses that the illness, injury 
or disease existed prior to service. Paragraphs 3.5.2 and 
3.5.2.2 indicate that a finding of a condition existing prior to 
service and not aggravated by service has to be supported by a 
preponderance of evidence. Therefore, the AFRC/SG medical 
officer’s determination that he has a pre-existing condition of 
Chronic Sinusitis, which rebuts the presumption of a LOD 
determination, requires support by a preponderance of evidence. 
Thus, there would seem to need to be some evidence for the 
medical officer’s diagnosis. He is totally confused as why 
anyone is diagnosing his condition as Chronic Sinusitis. He does 


not believe his medical record or anything else in his file 
supports a diagnosis of Chronic Sinusitis at all, let alone a 
preponderance of evidence. The doctor’s notes from his treatment 
in Afghanistan, dated 2 March 2011, states that his symptoms were 
consistent with Sinusitis, not Chronic Sinusitis. 

 

Even though he believes he does not have Chronic Sinusitis, 
assuming that he did and it is a pre-existing condition, it is 
still hard to understand AFRC’s position. AFI 36-2910, Line of 
Duty Misconduct, which applies to Reservists, states on page 2, 
“this interim change implements Title 10, United States Code 
(USC), Section 1207a’s eight-year rule which states members of 
the Air Force Reserve Component called or ordered to active duty 
for a period of more than 30 days who have incurred a disabling 
condition and have at least eight years of service, shall have 
the disability considered in the line of duty. He was on active 
duty and deployed for more than six months. In addition, he had 
more than eight years of cumulative service at the time of his 
deployment. Therefore, it is hard to understand why, even if his 
Sinusitis was chronic and maybe pre-existing, this would still 
require a finding of ILOD due to the eight-year rule. In order 
for the AFRC position to make sense, the Board would have to 
determine that the AFRC diagnosis of Chronic Sinusitis is 
correct, although it is completely unsupported by medical records 
or documentation. The Board would next have to find that the 
Rhinitis was also “chronic” although there is absolutely no 
medical evidence to support that position in the record. Next 
the Board would have to find that Title 10, United States Code 
(USC), Section 12079a did not apply. Finally, the Board would 
have to find the AFRC/SG’s statement that his “Chronic Sinusitis” 
has not had permanent worsening beyond the baseline and thus 
aggravation due to military service is not supported. 

 

He believes he does not have a chronic and pre-existing 
condition; however, he does believe his sinuses are worse after 
serving in Afghanistan. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

BCMR MEDCIAL CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant states that while there has been an association with 
exposures to air pollutants and acute exacerbation of existing 
pulmonary or allergic disease; in this case the supplied medical 
evidence, e.g., a singular clinic visit on 2 March 2011 when the 
applicant was prescribed a nasal decongestant (Afrin), the 
established “long history of bacterial sinusitis” reported in 
2006, and the current argument that his condition was “worsened 
over [his] normal once a year rate, is insufficient to establish 
a permanent worsening of a pre-existing condition, whether 
considering the applicant’s rhinitis or his sinusitis. Emphasis 


is placed upon the requirement for permanent worsening, as there 
must be evidence that the condition has manifested above and 
beyond the expected natural clinical expression or progression of 
the disorder. There is insufficient evidence of a permanent 
worsening of the applicant’s condition(s) and beyond the expected 
clinical expression or natural progression. His description of 
his symptoms as documented in his memorandum of 14 May 2001 
paints a far worse and expansive picture than recorded by the 
healthcare provider at the time of his clinical presentation on 
2 March 2011, when he was only prescribed Afrin. 

 

Addressing the applicant’s alternative contention that he would 
qualify for an ILOD finding based upon the provisions of Title 
10, USC, Section 1207a, also known as the “8-year rule,” the BCMR 
Medical Consultant opines that although the applicant had 
achieved in excess of eight years of active service, the rule 
would not apply in his case, unless he was found unfit or 
medically disqualified [career ending] due to the claimed medical 
conditions; which would have otherwise rendered him eligible for 
release from service under Title 10, USC, Section 1201, 1202, or 
1203. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates he received a 
mandatory retirement after achieving 30-years of service. 

 

Finally, acknowledging that under the National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) 2008 there must be “clear and 
unmistakable” evidence that a medical condition existed prior to 
service, the applicant’s documented treatment for sinusitis and 
allergic rhinitis in 2006 and the documented report of a 
“longstanding history of recurring bacterial sinusitis” recorded 
within a short period of a previous deployment, as well has his 
self-report of experiencing sinusitis approximately once per 
year, is a reasonable clear and unmistakable evidence that his 
predisposition for developing an acute exacerbation or recurrence 
of his medical condition(s), existed prior to the alleged 
offending deployment. The applicant’s remaining defense for a 
permanent worsening of his condition appears to rest upon his 
report of “two infections in the 14 months since returning from 
Afghanistan” which he says, is more than his “normal once a year 
rate” of occurrence. The applicant has not supplied evidence of 
treatment for sinusitis within the three to six months following 
his deployment to help determine if there is a reasonable or 
proximate association with his most recent alleged exposure and 
any clinical presentations different from his usual one per year 
rate. The Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) generally 
considers medical conditions occurring within the 12 months post-
active service in establishing service-connection. The applicant 
has not supplied evidence of service connection for sinusitis or 
allergic rhinitis from the DVA. The burden of proof has not been 
substantiated to warrant the desired change of the record. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 


 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

If he had the pre-existing condition of “chromic sinusitis” then 
he believes the BCMR Medical Consultants’ opinion is correct in 
its main points, and the finding of EPTS ILOD NA is correct. If 
the Board finds this is the case, then he requests the Board 
direct the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) to initiate an LOD 
for his initial case of sinusitis for which he received medical 
treatment while he was on active duty in Iraq in 2006. However, 
if he did not have “chronic sinusitis” but rather merely a 
history of brief annual episodes of sinusitis beginning after his 
Iraq deployment, with each episode occurring and ending in a few 
days, then the correct finding for both the brief episode of 
sinusitis for which he was treated for in Afghanistan, as well as 
the treatment records indicating a brief episode in sinusitis in 
Iraq, should both be characterized as ILOD. 

 

The Board should end this drawn-out process and direct AFRC to 
change the finding of his condition as ILOD as there is 
absolutely zero evidence of a pre-existing condition of “chronic 
sinusitis” in his records. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal to the BCMR Medical 
Consultant’s evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and the BCMR Medical Consultant, which have not been adequately 
rebutted by the applicant, and adopt their rationale as the basis 
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of 
an error or injustice. 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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-00979 in Executive Sessions on 27 November 2012 
and 22 March 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-00979: 

 

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

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/SG, dated 23 May 12. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Jun 12 

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit F. E-mail, SAF/MRBC, dated 8 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Mar 13, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair