AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02784
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reentry (RE) code of 2Q, which denotes “Personnel medically
retired or discharged,” be changed to RE-1 {sic}, so he may
reenter into the military, or in the alternative, his RE code be
changed to 3K, which denotes “Reserved for use by AFPC or the
Air Force Board for Corrections of Military Records.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was improperly conducted. The reason for
discharge no longer applies and is unjust. In this respect, he
contends the following:
1. He had a seizure while attending technical training school.
Several tests to include an electroencephalogram (EEG), Magnetic
Resonance Imaging (MRI) and computerized axial tomography (CAT)
scan were done; even though no abnormalities were found he was
still discharged.
2. He does not have a history of seizures; he has not had one
since being discharged; he does not take any medication; or
require special assistance.
3. Medical qualification standards state that after five years
of being “seizure free” he qualifies for reenlistment.
4. He meets the necessary medical requirements for reentry.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 13 Jun 05, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserves
(USAFR).
On 11 Sep 05, the applicant reported to the emergency room (ER)
with complaint of a seizure as witnessed by his wife. On
26 Jan 06, a Line of Duty (LOD) determination was initiated
because of the seizure. On 31 Jan 06, the applicant’s disease
was determined to have Existed Prior to Service (EPTS)-LOD Not
Applicable (N/A).
On 25 May 06, the applicant was discharged with service
characterized as honorable with a disability that existed prior
to service. He served 11 months and 13 days in the USAFR.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/A1K recommends denial. A1K states the applicant’s record
reflects he was discharged from the USAFR for a disability that
existed-prior-to-service (EPTS).
A1K states the applicant has not provided any documentation to
discount or substantiate the finding was inaccurate.
The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
By undated letter, the applicant reiterates his original
contentions.
In further support of his appeal, the applicant provides a
personal statement and a letter from his doctor.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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 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 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 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. The statement
provided by his physician that he has not had a seizure while
under his care is noted; however, the applicant has failed to
demonstrate that he meets all the criteria reflected in the
Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6130.03, Medical
2
Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the
Military Services for reentry. Specifically, there is no
evidence that he has been free of seizures for a period of five
years while taking no medication for seizure control, and has
had a normal sleep-deprived electroencephalogram and normal
neurology evaluation while taking no medications for seizure
control. In view of the above, we conclude the applicant has
not provided substantial evidence to warrant disturbing the
record. Should the applicant provide this information, we would
be willing to reconsider his request. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting
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 Docket Number
BC-2012-02784 in Executive Session on 19 Mar 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 12.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/A1K, dated 14 Aug 12
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 12.
Exhibit E. Letters, Applicant, undated, w/atch.
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02784-2
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02784-2 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of 2Q, which denotes Personnel medically retired or discharged, be changed to RE-1 {sic}, so he may reenter into the military, or in the alternative, his RE code be changed to 3K, which denotes Reserved for use...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 02357
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on the available records, the applicant served on active duty, from 13 Oct 82 to 29 Oct 92 and was transferred to the Air Force Reserve. They must have eight years of active service and have been on active duty orders for more than 30 days at the time the condition became unfitting, as subsequently determined by the PEB, and meet all other requirements set forth under the law and governing Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00062
He was eventually diagnosed with an Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome and on 25 August 2006 a LOD determination was completed with the finding that his condition existed prior to service (EPTS) thus making him ineligible for medical retirement. The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found the applicant unfit for continued military service and determined his condition was EPTS; however, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) determined the applicant was unfit for duty but...
A complete copy of the HQ AFRC/DPM letter, with attachment, is at Exhibit M. A copy of the HQ AFRC/DPM letter, with attachment, was forwarded to the applicant’s counsel on 23 September 1999 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: Inasmuch as the applicant has been afforded due process through a new, appropriately conducted new PDRB, and that this PDRB’s findings with respect to his medical condition...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03639
There is no evidence of a Command Man-Day Allocation System (CMAS) request for MEDCON during any time the applicant was on AD orders or prior to his retirement date of 1 Jun 12. While we note the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility to deny the applicants request, the evidence reflects the applicant was treated for a medical condition in Dec 11 and, contrary to the AF Form 348, Informal Line of Duty Determination, dated Mar 12, wherein the military medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04477
Indeed, the DVA rating letter dated 2 Aug 12 found no basis for military service connection for lumbar spine strain related to chronic back pain. However, even if the disorder was present during the period of service and there was evidence of an upper thoracic disc protrusion (T10-T11), either condition would not necessarily be considered disqualifying or unfitting for continued military service and there was no evidence that either condition was the cause of service termination. In...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03777
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03777 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2008-02939
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/A1K defers to the appropriate office in regards to the applicant’s request for a medical retirement. His left knee injury was recorded as occurring “while in college.” He received periodic non-flying medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03762
The Eight-Year Rule states a disabling condition will be found to be in the line of duty, even though the condition EPTS, if the member has at least eight years of service, and the member was on active duty orders specifying a period of 30 days at the time the condition became unfitting, as subsequently determined by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The applicant has over eight years of active duty, and therefore, his disability should have been found to be in the LOD as a matter of law....
The bottom line of these various documents apparently is that applicant's 1993 "In Line of Duty" (LOD) injury did not result in disability or warrant disability processing and that his February 1995 "EPTS---LOD not applicable" (not LOD) injury resulted in both his disqualification for further Reserve duty and his ineligibility for disability processing, in accordance with the applicable directives [AFI 36-2910 & AFI 36-32121. SGP determined “the [disquallfvmg] medical condition existed...