AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02176 
COUNSEL:  
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
  __________________________ 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
He  be  allowed  to  undergo  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  and 
disability  processing  for  a  history  of  recurrent  cerebral 
vascular accidents.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  was  clearly  on  active  duty  when  his  injuries  were  incurred; 
therefore, he is entitled to be processed through the Disability 
Evaluation System (DES).   
 
He suffered a stroke while on active duty on or about 7 September 
2010.    He  was  admitted  to  a  local  hospital  for  a  headache, 
tingling  tongue,  and  blurry  vision.    He  was  subsequently 
discharged on 8 September 2010, without a determination as to the 
cause of his symptoms.  He suffered another stroke on 8 February 
2011 while on active duty to attend a class from 7 February 2011 
to  1  March  2011.    He  was  admitted  to  the  emergency  room  for 
treatment and was released from the hospital on 11 February 2011.   
 
He  was  subsequently  found  to  be  temporarily  medically 
disqualified and was given 60 days to provide the Air Force with 
medical  documentation  regarding  his  injuries.    On  18  February 
2011,  he  was  found  to  be  non-deployable  as  a  result  of  his 
medical  condition.    As  a  result,  he  was  separated  from  the 
Reserves as being medically unfit for a condition not acquired in 
the line of duty.   
 
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 served in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).   
 
While serving on an active duty tour from 4 April 2010 through 
30 September 2010, the applicant was admitted to a local hospital 
with  a  headache  and  blurred  vision.    He  was  discharged  on 
8 September 2010 without diagnosis.  A neurology consult obtained 

at that time revealed consideration that his condition was caused 
by medication, although an MRI did reveal areas of old infarct.  
A line of duty (LOD) was submitted and he was found in the LOD 
for this acute episode for which he was hospitalized in order to 
ensure his hospital costs were covered.   
 
In  February  2011,  the  applicant  was  again  on  a  short  tour  of 
active duty from 7 February 2011 through 14 February 2011.  On 
8 February 2011, the applicant was admitted to a local hospital 
for  left  hand  numbness.    He  was  diagnosed  with  acute  recurrent 
ischemic  cardio  vascular  accident  (CVA).    A  CT  at  the  time  of 
admission  revealed  atrophy  and  small  vessel  disease  consistent 
with age as well as an old right MCA infarct.  The applicant was 
maintained on orders to undergo medical evaluation and follow-up.  
An  LOD  was  submitted  for  recurrent  CVA,  which  was  found  as 
existed prior to service (EPTS)-LOD not applicable.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFRC/SG  recommends  denial.    SG  states  that  to  find  the 
applicant’s underlying cause of his condition to be in the LOD is 
not reasonable given he had evidence of recurrent, pre-existing 
disease.  There is no question the applicant was in status at the 
time  of  his  two  episodes  of  transient  infarct.    Both  events, 
including hospitalization and work-up, were the responsibility of 
the Air Force.  However the underlying disease process is long-
standing and not related to duty.   
 
The complete SG evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
 
 
COUNSEL'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
No  entity  in  the  Air  Force  is  more  member  hostile  than  AFRC.  
AFRC’s  denial  of  LOD  status  is  a  recurring  theme.    There  is  no 
proof, as suggested in the advisory opinion, that the “underlying 
disease process is long-standing and not related to duty.”  There 
is  no  legal  requirement  that  a  condition  be  “related  to  duty.”  
It merely has to occur while the member is entitled to basic pay.  
During  these  episodes,  the  applicant  was  entitled  to  basic  pay. 
To  the  extent  the  applicant’s  condition  was  EPTS,  the  fact  does 
not mitigate the actual unfitting events occurred on active duty.  
Since  the  applicant  did  not  meet  retention  standards  while  on 
active  duty,  an  MEB  should  have  been  initiated.    The  applicant 
deserves an MEB as the acute events which rendered him unfit for 
duty occurred while he was on active duty.   
 
The counsel’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit D.   
 
 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

2

 
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.    After  a 
thorough review of the evidence of record, we see no evidence of 
error or impropriety in the LOD process and are not persuaded by 
the  applicant’s  contentions,  that  he  has  been  the  victim  of  an 
injustice.  It appears the applicant’s medical case was properly 
evaluated  under  the  appropriate  Air  Force  regulations,  which 
implement  the  law.    Therefore,  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  we  note  counsel  asserts  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  an 
MEB,  the  preponderance  of  evidence  of  record  suggests  the 
applicant’s  predisposition  for  strokes  and  his  military  service 
were  unrelated  and  the  mere  fact  that  at  least  one  stroke 
resulted in his disqualification for continued service was likely 
considered  insufficient  to  establish  a  casual  or  aggravating 
relationship  with  military  service.    We  are  not  unsympathetic 
toward  the  applicant;  however,  evidence  has  not  been  presented 
which would lead us to believe that the determination of EPTS-LOD 
not  applicable  for  recurrent  CVA  was  erroneous  or  unjust.  
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. 
 
 
 

 

3

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 
The  following  documentary  evidence  was  considered  for  AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-02176: 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRC/SG, dated 25 Jun 12. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 12. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, Counsel, dated 30 Jul 12. 

The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2012-02176  in  Executive  Session  on  23  January  2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

  

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
Panel Chair 

 

4