RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00909
COUNSEL: JERICHO DUTCHOVER, DAV
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea be added to his AF
Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical
Evaluation Board, dated 14 Jan 08, and included as part of his
overall disability rating.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was medically separated with a 20 percent service-connected
disability rating for diabetes.
He was diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea in 2007, but he
was never given a sleep study or treatment for it.
His medical separation should have included disability ratings
for diabetes mellitus and obstructive sleep apnea. Both
conditions were documented in his military medical records
before his medical board was considered.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) performed a sleep study
test and his condition was confirmed. However, the DVA denied
his claim for sleep apnea in 2012 because he did not have sleep
apnea while in the service. His medical records prove that he
had sleep apnea during his service.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal
statement, VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim; and
SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 8 Nov 07.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 4 Dec 07, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB) for diabetes mellitus Type II. The MEB referred the case
to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 14 Jan 08,
the IPEB found the member unfit for continued service and
recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability
rating of 20 percent in accordance with Department of Defense
(DoD) and Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating
Disabilities (VASRD) guidelines. On 18 Jan 08, the applicant
agreed with the IPEBs findings and recommended disposition, and
officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
directed his discharge on 3 Mar 08. On 3 Mar 08, he was
honorably discharged and credited with 8 years and 24 days of
total active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of
the Air Force which is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. DPFD states the preponderance of
evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the
disability process.
DPPD states that the applicant was previously boarded for
obstructive sleep apnea in 2007, but he was returned to duty
with an assignment limitation code. His sleep apnea was listed
under Past Medical History in the narrative summary of the
current medical board. The condition was not deemed to be
unfitting and therefore, he was not boarded for the sleep apnea.
The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 31 Mar 13, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit
D). As of this date, this office has received no response.
________________________________________________________________
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 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.
________________________________________________________________
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-2013-00909 in Executive Session on 5 Dec 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 14 Mar 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Mar 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00470
His spine injury be determined to be in-the-line-of-duty (ILOD). On 24 Jul 10, the applicant appealed the Informal LOD Determination of existed prior to serviceService Aggravated for his cervical spine, asking that the injury be re-investigated. Regarding the applicants contention the IPEB failed to appreciate the severity of his spinal condition, according to AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation For Retention, Retirement, And Separation, when reviewing cases, the IPEB considers medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02351
Control of Member After PEB Action states, The MPF will not retire, discharge, nor release a member from active duty before receiving the final decision in the form of retirement orders or instructions from HQ AFPC/DPPD directing disposition. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01472
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01472 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His compensable disability rating of 20 percent be increased to 40 percent. On 28 Jul 10, the applicant was discharged from active duty, under the provisions of AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation,...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00939
The Medical Consultant noted that shortly following his discharge from the Air Force, the applicant separated from his wife and applied to the DVA for disability compensation for his various medical problems. He sleeps a lot during the day since he is not able to sleep well during the night and claimed that he has severe sleep apnea. He now requests that he be medically retired from the Air Force as of the date of his separation on 26 Jul 99, contending that he was suffering from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002724
On 13 August 2010, the applicant did not concur with the findings and requested a formal hearing. Since his diabetes was controlled by medication and his sleep apnea was found to be medically acceptable, there is insufficient evidence on which to add diabetes and sleep apnea as unfitting conditions. It is acknowledged the DVA has granted him a proposed 50% disability rating for obstructive sleep apnea and 20% rating for diabetes mellitus, type 2.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00648
Further, it is noted the Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the members condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an error...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00371
_________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-03998
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is included at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. At no time during the applicants disability processing was he boarded for or given a disability rating for OSA. The OSA should have been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007076C070206
The DVA is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service in awarding a disability rating, only that a medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show the CPAP machine does not resolve his sleep apnea condition nor has he provided sufficient evidence to show he was physically unable to perform his duties while he was in the Army. However, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-03675
Why did you not know you had sleep apnea at the time your contested OPR was written? How was it that your condition affected your duty performance during the period of the contested report and not at other duty locations? The applicant provides an example of his performance of duties as a priest during the period of the contested report.