RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04038 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) be added to his military record so 
he would qualify for a medical retirement. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He has medical expert evidence that proves OSA is a direct 
correlation to atrial fibrillation, which when combined with the 
10 percent rating he received for this condition would result in 
a medical retirement. His discharge should have been based on 
his OSA and atrial fibrillation, resulting in a disability 
rating of 60 percent, which exceeds the 30 percent required for 
a medical retirement. 

 

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

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 23 Jan 2002, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 3 Sep 2009, the applicant was honorably discharged. His 
narrative reason for separation is “DISABILITY SEVERANCE PAY.” 
He served 7 years, 7 months and 11 days of active service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. Accordingly, there is no 
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states that the preponderance 
of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during 
the disability process. The member had a medical evaluation 
board on 20 Nov 2008, for atrial fibrillation. On 19 Feb 2009, 
the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) reviewed the case 
and recommended discharge with severance pay (DWSP) with a 
disability rating of 10 percent. The member non-concurred on 


5 Mar 2009 and requested a formal hearing with counsel. On 
13 Apr 2009 the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) reviewed 
the case with medical records and also recommended DWSP for 
atrial fibrillation requiring chronic Coumadin usage with a 
10 percent disability rating. The FPEB did list his severe OSA 
requiring a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine 
as an unfitting condition, but not currently compensable or 
ratable. On 13 Apr 2009, the applicant non-concurred and 
requested his case be sent to the Secretary to the Air Force 
Personnel Council (SAFPC) for review. On 21 May 2009, the SAFPC 
directed the applicant be DWSP with a disability rating of 
10 percent. 

 

The complete DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant states that it could not be established that the 
applicant was unable to reasonably perform his military duties 
as a result of OSA. His commander's letter indicates he did not 
demonstrate an impediment to performing either in-garrison or 
CONUS duties due to his medical condition(s). Moreover, it 
appears that only after initiation of the MEB for atrial 
fibrillation, that OSA was introduced as an additional unfitting 
and compensable medical condition. 

 

Under paragraph E3.P3.3.3, 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, the member may be 
considered fit for duty even though medical evidence indicates 
questionable physical ability to continue to perform duty." 
Further, under paragraph E3.P3.3.4, 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. Based upon the supplied 
Service medical evidence, the Medical Consultant found no cause 
and effect relationship between the applicant's treated and 
controlled OSA, and the termination of his military service. 
Although the applicant has supplied an article and two letters 
from medical experts which establish OSA as a possible risk 
factor for Atrial Fibrillation, the reviewer finds this risk to 
be associated with the untreated or non-compliant OSA patient. 
Thus, the fact that the applicant requires a CPAP to prevent 
periods of apnea and the resultant reduced oxygen levels, the 
use of the device does not automatically infer unfitness for 
continued service. Undeniably, the preponderance of evidence 
suggests that it is the applicant's requirement for sustained 
use of an anticoagulant, and the risk for hemorrhage under acute 
trauma or thromboembolism if non-compliant, and not his OSA, 
that posed the signature impediment to his retainability and 
resulted in his release from military service. 

 

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


 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 4 Feb 2013, copies of the Air Force and BCMR Medical 
Consultant’s evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for 
review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office 
has received no response (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 opinions and 
recommendations of AFPC/DPDD and the BCMR Medical Consultant and 
adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

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 this application 
in Executive Session on 30 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-04038: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Aug 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 4 Oct 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 3 Feb 

 2013. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 4 Feb 2013. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair