RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02464 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) be determined to be within the 
line of duty (LOD) by applying the “Eight Year Rule.” 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

During both of his LOD determinations, the wrong point summary 
close out date was used to determine his eligibility for the 
Eight Year Rule, unfairly resulting in his ineligibility. If 
the correct close out date was used, he would have had enough 
points to qualify for application of the Eight Year Rule. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to the applicant’s military personnel records, he 
currently serves in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of master 
sergeant (E-7). 

 

On 27 Jul 09, the applicant commenced a tour of active service. 

 

On 20 Nov 09, he was found to have a medical condition that 
restricted him from Reserve participation for pay or points, and 
he was subsequently diagnosed with OSA. The applicant requested 
a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to determine fitness for duty. 

 

On 3 May 10, he was released from active duty at the completion 
of his active service. Two Informal LODs, dated 23 May 2010 and 
14 Feb 2011, determined that his OSA existed prior to entry into 
service (EPTS)—LOD not applicable. 

 

Per AFI 36-2910, paragraph 3.4.1.2.3., the Eight Year Rule 
states “a disabling condition will be found to be in the line of 
duty, even though the condition existed prior to serve (EPTS), 


if the member has a least eight years of active service (8 years 
do not have to be consecutive), and the member was on active 
duty orders specifying a period of more than 30 days at the time 
the condition became unfitting, as subsequently determined by a 
Physical Evaluation Board. 

 

On 2 Feb 2011, AFRC/SGPA notified the member’s unit that the 
applicant was medically determined to be fit for duty and 
returned him to duty with an Assignment Limitation Code (ALC). 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFRC/SG recommends denial. The Eight Year Rule requires the 
medical condition be disabling. The application of the Eight 
Year Rule can only be made by the Physical Evaluation Board. 
The applicant was found fit and returned to duty on an 
Assignment Limitation Code on 2 Feb 2010. Members found fit and 
returned to duty are not considered disabled. Only disabling 
conditions qualify for consideration under the Eight Year Rule. 

 

A complete copy of the AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 4 Nov 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

 

A copy of the SAF/MRBR letter to the applicant is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
(OPR) and adopt its 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
applicant was denied without a personal appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with the 
application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02464 in Executive Session on 2 Feb 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/SG, dated 10 Aug 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 2011. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair