RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02840

 						COUNSEL:   

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated as a cadet at the United States Air Force 
Academy (USAFA).  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant thru counsel states that despite the challenges he 
has faced, he is ready to resume his studies and training in 
order to be commissioned.  

In September 2010, he started to suffer from headaches, nausea 
and vomiting and had difficulties with concentration.  In 
February 2011, an MRI of his brain identified a tumor that 
resulted in surgery to remove the mass.

In 2011, he took a medical leave of absence from the USAFA and 
returned in May 2012.  Despite a very good recovery, good 
academic and military performance and strong support from his 
chain of command, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found him 
unfit and placed him on the TDRL.  

A MEB was convened on 29 January 2013 and found his Primitive 
Neuroectodermal Tumor (PNET) made his qualification for world-
wide duty questionable and referred his case to the Informal PEB 
(IPEB).  On 18 April 2013, the IPEB convened and rated him at 
100 percent disabled according to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) regulations as determined by the Integrated 
Disability Evaluation System (IDES).  The Formal PEB (FPEB) 
convened on 23 May 2013 found him unfit for Category I unfitting 
condition of PNET S/P Resection, Craniotomy.  

He suffered from a serious brain tumor condition that was 
corrected by surgery and removal of the tumor was more than 
three years ago.  He has remained tumor, cancer and symptom free 
for several years.  He is fit and ready to serve in any 
environment. 
 
In a letter dated 3 October 2014, his doctor writes that he has 
not had any seizures since May 2012.  The most recent MRI of his 
brain from August 2014 shows stable, post-surgical changes, with 
no recurrence of the right frontal lobe primitive 
neuroectodermal tumor.  He has been seizure free for over two 
years and wishes to taper off topiramate slowly.  

In support of his requests, the applicant provides a statement 
from his counsel, chronology of events, medical information and 
other various documents associated with his requests.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, Exhibit 
A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to Special Order ACD-00842 dated 28 January 2014, the 
applicant was placed on the TDRL effective 1 February 2014 in 
the grade of Cadet Third Class (C3C) with a compensable 
percentage for physical disability of 100 percent.  


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial of the request to show that the 
recommended finding of placement on the TDRL be overturned to 
show he is fit and should be returned to duty with admission to 
the USAFA.  The preponderance of the evidence reflects that no 
error or injustice occurred during the disability process.  The 
applicant submitted a one-page letter from his doctor but it 
does not address the information required for his TDRL 
evaluation.

The IPEB reviewed the medical board findings on 18 April 
2013 for PNET S/P Resection, Craniotomy with a disability rating 
of 100 percent.  The applicant appealed to both the FPEB and 
SAFPC.  On 3 January 2014, the SAFPC directed the applicant be 
placed on TDRL with a disability rating of 100 percent under the 
provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 1202.  SAFPC noted: “The Board offers 
the following rationale for its decision.  PNET is a neural 
crest tumor.  It is a rare tumor, usually occurring in children 
and young adults.  The overall five year survival rate is about 
50 percent and 35 percent in adults over 20 years of age.  
Although his prognosis appears to be better than the statistics 
suggest, he will require close medical follow-up and will have a 
limited ability to deploy for an extended period of time.  The 
board also notes that the cadet is specifically unfit for duty 
under DODI 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, 
Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services, paragraph 
30.b, current or history of malignant tumors.  The board finds 
the member unfit for duty at this time and he should be placed 
on the TDRL and re-evaluated in 18 months.  The assessment 
oncology/hematology at that time should include comments on the 
cadet’s interim course/treatment, current status and treatment, 
any duty/activity restrictions, future and anticipated 
course/treatment and prognosis (to include specific 
mortality/morbidity estimates).”  Special Order ACD 00842 issued 
on 28 January 2014 established the applicant’s retirement date 
as 1 February 2014. The scheduled TDRL appointment will comply 
with all the requests directed by Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Council (SAFPC).  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit B.

USAFA/A1A states they will evaluate the applicant’s readmission 
according to USAFA 36-2005, Readmission of Former USAF Academy 
Cadets, should the applicant be removed from TDRL and applies 
for admission.

A complete copy of the USAFA/A1A evaluation is at Exhibit C.

SAFPC recommends denial of the applicant’s request to return to 
duty for the purpose of readmission to USAFA.   To grant relief 
would be contrary to the criteria established by DODI 6130.03.  
While not explicitly prohibited by the DODI, reinstatement would 
be inconsistent with its objectives.  A person with the 
applicant’s medical history who was not on TDRL status would be 
ineligible for appointment to a military academy and denied 
commissioning.  If the applicant was to pursue return to duty 
through the IPEB, and if necessary the FPEB, he might possibly 
exceed the age requirement for readmission to the USAFA.  In order 
to be eligible for readmission, the applicant must not have passed 
his 27th birthday on 1 July of the year of graduation. 

The applicant contends that he is fit for duty and there is no 
reason to question the Commandant of Cadets who indicated the 
applicant was fulfilling all duties required of cadets at the 
time he was placed on TDRL.  His counsel also contends that 
SAFPC erred in considering a “limited ability to deploy.”  
Counsel’s statement is applicable only if one considers the goal 
of USAFA attendance to be limited to graduation, and not to 
eventual commissioning.  In addition, some USAFA cadets have 
participated in brief deployments during the course of their 
studies.

The applicant also contends that he is cured of his disease.  
However, even if the applicant’s tumor is cured, he is 
potentially and still medically disqualified for commissioning 
in the Air Force.  DODI 6130.03 considers a history of 
congenital or acquired anomalies of the central nervous system 
or meningocele to be disqualifying for appointment as a 
commissioned officer and disqualifying for cadets and midshipmen 
at the U.S. Service academies and students enrolled in ROTC 
scholarship programs applying for retention in their respective 
programs.  The DODI does provide some flexibility for members on 
the TDRL.  In this case, SAFPC was required to place the 
applicant on TDRL status by the Veterans Administration Schedule 
for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) per 38 U.S.C. § 1155.  VASRD 
code 8002 requires that a 100 percent disability compensation 
rating for malignancy of the brain be continued for two years 
following cessation of surgical, chemotherapeutic or other 
treatment modality.  At this point, if the residuals have 
stabilized the rating will be made on neurological residuals 
according to symptomatology.  The decision to place the 
applicant on the TDRL did not necessarily imply he would be 
returned to duty.  Any subsequent board would be expected to 
justify why the applicant would meet standards for commissioning 
when a potential new accession not on TDRL status would be 
denied commissioning for the same condition.  

The fact that the applicant’s neurologist chose to maintain the 
applicant on anti-seizure medications for at least two years 
after his last reported seizure is an indication the applicant 
is at higher risk for seizures than the rest of the general 
population.  Because a prior history of seizures places a person 
at higher risk of subsequent seizures, the DODI Enclosure 
4 considers disqualifying any seizure occurring beyond the 6th 
birthday, unless the applicant has been free of seizures for a 
period of 5 years while taking no medication for seizure control 
and has a normal sleep-deprived electroencephalogram and normal 
neurology evaluation while taking no medications for seizure 
control.  Seizures by their very nature require deployment 
limitations; it is not within the best interest of the Air Force 
to commission a member who has the potential for a recurrence of 
seizure.

There is historical precedent for cadets who fail to meet 
medical standards for commissioning to be allowed to graduate 
with their USAFA class.  However, graduation without a 
commission typically occurs when the cadet’s medical condition 
is discovered late in his or her USAFA career.  As the 
applicant’s medical condition was discovered in the middle of 
his C3C (sophomore year), the precedent for graduation without a 
commission does not appear to apply in his case.  The applicant 
does not provide sufficient justification to override 
application of established standards for commissioning.   

A complete copy of the SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 18 May 2015 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.





THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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 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 the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis 
for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his 
burden of proof that he has 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 requested 
relief.

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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02840 in Executive Session on 8 July 2015 under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member
 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02840 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 June 2014, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 24 October 2014.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, USAFA/A1A, dated 30 January 2015.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, SAFPC, dated 11 May 2015.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 May 2015.