Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-04038
Original file (BC-2012-04038.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
 

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 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 04038

    Original file (BC 2012 04038.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The member had a medical evaluation board on 20 Nov 2008, for atrial fibrillation. 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00371

    Original file (BC-2003-00371.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied. Following DPPD’s assessment, they conclude the applicant was treated fairly throughout the military Disability Evaluation System (DES) process, that he was properly rated under federal disability guidelines at the time of his evaluation, and that he was afforded the opportunity for further review as provided by federal law and policy. As...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03201

    Original file (BC-2007-03201.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Both the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) and Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) found the applicant unfit and recommended discharge with severance pay with a zero (0) percent disability rating. Additionally, the applicant’s inability to deploy and the requirement to utilize a CPAP machine were not measures for the severity of his medical condition under the Department of Defense (DoD) disability rating guidance for OSA at the time of the applicant’s discharge. Therefore,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100160

    Original file (0100160.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFBCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied (Exhibit C). Prior to that date, an evaluation of 30% was assigned for severe, frequent attacks. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, I believe the applicant’s medical condition at the time of his retirement warrants a higher disability rating.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02228

    Original file (BC-2012-02228.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The IPEB noted that she had declined further “ablation surgery.” On 9 March 2006, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ 5 APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 15 Feb 13, by letter, the applicant amended her request and now ask to be medically retired instead of being returned to duty. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01816

    Original file (BC-2008-01816.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The FPEB recommended permanent disability retirement with a 10% disability rating. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: In response to the AFPC/DPSD evaluation, counsel responds that the applicant’s rating has to be based on the rating criteria, in other words, the DVA rating chart, rather than pulling a percentage of out thin air and applying it to...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00383

    Original file (PD2009-00383.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Despite normal tests, the CI continued to have symptoms and the Cardiologist opined his chest pain and palpitations were not cardiac conditions. The CI’s symptoms of chest pain and palpitations did not result from a cardiac condition. No VASRD code for non-cardiac chest pain and palpitations exists and the CI’s disability must be rated analogously.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00172

    Original file (BC-2010-00172.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00172 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her disability discharge, with severance pay (DWSP) be changed to a medical retirement. The applicant’s case was forwarded to the Formal PEB (FPEB) and they concurred with IPEB’s findings, with additional findings of myofascial pain syndrome...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01109

    Original file (BC 2013 01109.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    We note the BCMR Medical Consultant states that had the applicant indeed completed a MEB in 2004 and was found unfit by a PEB, his case would have been referred to SAFPC for a final disposition. In this respect, we note that the applicant in PD2009-00221 was initially referred to the PEB for asthma, mild persistent and found unfit for continued military service and separated with a 10 percent disability rating, whereas in the case before us, there is no evidence the he was unable to perform...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00066

    Original file (PD2010-00066.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. In the matter of the right arm and leg weakness conditions, migraine headache condition, vascular dementia and mood disorder condition, the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend a finding of unfit for additional rating at separation. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.