RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04310 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reserve retirement be changed to a medical retirement. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The medical data that was considered in conjunction with her line of duty (LOD) determination and from her private doctors was not reviewed accurately; nor, was the LOD considered. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of medical records, civilian position description, Notification of Personnel Action, Physical Profile Serial Reports, NGB/SGPA letter, Worldwide Duty Evaluation letter, and a Fitness Determination letter. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 9 May 2007, the applicant presented to a military outpatient clinic with a report of “multiple episodes of bronchospasm.” Her medical records indicate she reported her symptoms “were irritated by her deployment to Turkey in 2003 and Iraq in 2004.” The record also indicates her condition was controlled with an inhaled bronchodilator and inhaled steroid combination; however her condition was determined disqualifying for retention under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 48-123. An Air Force Form 348, Line of Duty Determination, dated 9 May 2007, indicates the applicant had an initial LOD approved on 28 July 2004, regarding a diagnosis of acute bronchitis. A pulmonologist subsequently diagnosed the applicant with Asthma, which is a disqualifying condition for further military service. Her respiratory condition was found to be In the Line of Duty (ILOD). On 20 September 2007, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for Asthma and Sleep Apnea. Her case was subsequently referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). The IPEB found the applicant’s condition did not prevent her from reasonably performing her duties of her office, grade, rank or rating; and, recommended her for return to duty. The applicant disagreed with the IPEB decision; however there is no evidence to show she sought further appellate review of the IPEB findings and recommended disposition. As a result, even though the applicant was returned to duty, she did not meet medical standards for worldwide deployments. Because her position was a deployable one, her unit was instructed to place the applicant in an Assignment Limitation Code-C status with a re-evaluation period/expiration date of 31 December 2008, and to convert her position to a non-deployable one in order to retain her. However, the applicant’s position was projected for elimination at the end of Calendar Year 2008; therefore, upon expiration of the converted non-deployable position, she again became disqualified for retention. Because the applicant had served more than 15 but less than 20 years of satisfactory service, she was subsequently reassigned to the Retired Reserve Section and placed on the USAF Reserve Retired List effective 1 January 2009. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical Consultant states that although Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 1214a, has been implemented to discourage involuntary administrative separation of individuals for the same medical reason for which they were found fit for continued service by a PEB, the consultant is of the opinion that this does not directly apply to the applicant’s situation, as she was not administratively discharged. The applicant was retained for an additional period of time in the service after being found fit, until her position was eliminated. Given the choice of an administrative separation versus a retirement, it is clear why the applicant chose retirement. Although the applicant’s respiratory condition was found to be ILOD by the military, the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) subsequently denied her service-connection for the condition. Nevertheless, decisions by the military departments are based upon evidence present at the time of release from service and are not binding by the DVA. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION: A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 October 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has received no reply. _________________________________________________________________ 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 an 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 BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the 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. 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04310 in Executive Sessions on 27 November 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04310: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 18 Nov 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 27 Sep 12. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dtd 4 Oct 12.