RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00419

XXXXXXXX					COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect her command time of 12 years and 1 month.

The misspelling of her name on her retirement certificate be corrected.  (ADMINISTRATVIELY CORRECTED)

Her Line of Duty (LOD) determination dated 6 June 2009, be corrected.

The Medical Evaluation Process (MEB) be accomplished to include potentially unfitting/disqualifying conditions. 

Her retirement date by changed to 10 October 2011, to include retirement points and pay.

She receive retroactive pay from 24 May to the new retirement date as determined by the AFBCMR.

She be issued a new DD Form 214 covering the changes.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 5 June 2009, she was injured during an Operation Readiness Inspection.  The treatment for this injury lead to a total knee replacement on 17 December 2009.  She was permanently retired effective 23 May 2011 due to the disability.   

The errors on her LOD caused errors in the MEB.  A poorly performed MEB caused errors in her Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and subsequent military retirement.  Had her MEB been done correctly, she would have been awarded a higher disability rating.  

She contends the following errors exist in her military record and the injustices that occurred in relation to those processes.

Her LOD was not completed in a timely manner, nor was it completed in accordance with AFI 36-2910, Line of Duty (Misconduct) Determination.  The LOD was not completed until 11 December 2009, approximately six months after the injury.  

Additionally, the medical officer who conducted the LOD review was not the medical officer that first provided treatment in accordance with AFI 36-2910, Line of Duty (Misconduct) Determination, para 3.4.  She believes the treating physician should have conducted her LOD based on the fact that he witnessed the injury and he prepared the SF 600, Medical Record. 

The applicant notes the day she was injured was not a normal training day.  The Special Instructions (SPINS) Attack Response Exercise notice submitted for the Boards review confirms the circumstances of that day.  Specifically, SPINS states "5-6 June will be the war days".  It also notes, the "Exercise Area - The entire VTANG Base is designated as the exercise zone, except construction zones, the Alert trailers, Alert Pods 1-4 and any areas posted." She was in the exercise area when she fell hustling to get undercover.

When the LOD was finally initiated, it was not accomplished properly.  The following errors exist:  AF Form 348, Line of Duty, Block 6 should state that she injured her left knee on 6 June 2009 during a military training exercise.  However, when the LOD was processed the medical officer checked “disease” instead of “injury”.  This block did not address the nature or extent of the injury; rather, it focused on a history of disease with no mention of her injury.  It should have addressed the information provided by the treating physician.

The AF Form 348, block 7 should reflect that she was first treated on base for this injury.  Additionally, block 8 should read that treatment was provided at approximately 0530 on 6 June 2009.  Block 11 did not provide a complete description of the circumstances of the accident (injury) in accordance with AFI 36-2910, A2.1.4.  The only mention of the accident is where the medical officer states on the AF Form 348 was "6 June 2009 (military) Fell and struck left knee-diagnosed as having a contusion.  Continued with duty".  It made no mention of tripping over a tent flap, while wearing MOPP gear during an attack response exercise in the designated exercise area.  Block 12A should include either the SF 600, 9 Jun 09, Medical Record, prepared regarding the injury or check the block for "Witness". Block 12B did not include the one witness to the incident. It also did not include her treating physician, whom believed the injury on 6 June 2009 was directly related to the requirement for her knee replacement on 17 December 2009.  

In a letter dated 12 October 2009, the physician that treated her left knee, stated that her fall in June of 2009 aggravated her underlying arthrosis to the point that total knee arthroplasty was the only real option for sustained pain relief and return to function.  This letter was available as supporting documentation when the LOD was written.  Additional records required for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) application were affected because the LOD was processed improperly and did not include the circumstances of the injury.  The MOPP gear she was wearing when she fell hustling to enter the tent and take cover, and the GP-Medium Tent, each qualify under the criteria for "Combat-related" and "Instrumentality of War" as defined in DODI 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation. She believes there was a direct causal relationship between the use of the MOPP gear, tent/shelter, simulated war exercise, and the injury that lead to her disability. 

Additionally, the AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, block 9F should have stated her disability was "S" for duty under conditions simulating war instead of "No". Block 10E should have read "Yes" instead of "No".  They were unable to make a determination during her MEB about whether the physical defect was incurred under the parameters outlined in AFI 36-3212, because the LOD did not include the circumstances of the injury on 6 June 2009 that led to her first knee replacement and eventually to the second knee replacement.

Her retirement order, dated 25 February 2011 states "No" that her disability, which was injury triggered, was not a direct result of a combat related injury as defined in 26 USC 104; however, it should have stated "Yes".  Had the LOD been done properly, the physician who prepared the SF 502 for her MEB would have included the date and circumstances of her injury.

The applicant also contends the Medical Evaluation/Physical Evaluation Boards were not conducted properly.  The unit she was assigned to did not have familiarity with the correct process. Compounding this was known problems with the regional Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO) support. It was well acknowledged at the national level that the MEB/PEB programs were not performing at acceptable performance levels.  She has provided a memorandum addressing the specific issues she faced during the process, systemic issues for ANG/AF Reserve personnel, and efforts by the USAF, AF Reserves, and Air National Guard to correct these issues.  She understands many policy and process improvements have been implemented to fix the system; however, they occurred after her retirement.

In the initial MEB finding, she was returned to duty without restrictions to allow her to retire as scheduled in December 2010.  As a traditional guardsman with less than 20 years of active federal service (but over eight), this would have denied her a disability retirement.  She questioned the finding and explained how this was inconsistent with her abilities.  She did not believe this was an appropriate statement.  The physician changed the determination to "Member must undergo this MEB prior to retirement" and backdated the form.

Although these errors were resolved, they are good examples that there were critical mistakes during the MEB that needed correction before the FPEB began.  
As further examples of the lack of attention to detail during this process, the final version of the AF Form 618 contained the following errors:  block 11: her age, block 16: her Air Force Specialty Code should be 40COE, block 17: total service was incorrect.  

The SF 502, Narrative Summary, for the MEB did not include the following items as required by AFI 48-123, para 11.16. para 11.16.4.2.1: Date and circumstance of occurrence. 

As noted, her military records did not accurately document the original LOD injury on 6 June 2009, the circumstances of the fall, or connect it to the requirement for replacement of her left knee on 17 December 2009.

Her MEB was incomplete and did not document the full clinical information for all the medical conditions she had including treatment status and potential for medical recovery as required by DODI 1332.38.  It also did not provide a clear picture of her medical health as well as the circumstances leading to it in accordance with AFI 48-123, 24 Aug 12, Medical Examinations and Standards, para 11.16.4.1.4.. Medical reports for the following potentially unfitting/disqualifying conditions were in her record at the time of the MEB and these conditions should have been included in her evaluation for continued military service:  Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Hallux Valgus, Arthritis, patellofemoral arthrosis bilaterally and osteoarthritis.  She was not evaluated for a total joint replacement of her right knee.  Both the MEB and the PEBLO failed to conduct an entire review of her medical condition, nor did they review any changes to her medical condition. Had the right knee been evaluated in her original MEB, she believes the total joint replacement would have triggered an update to the MEB/PEB and led to a higher disability rating. 

She was not provided convalescent leave, nor was she retained on duty until her right knee was stabilized enough for evaluation by the MEB.  DODI 1241.2, Reserve Component Incapacitation System Management, para 6.6.3.2. states "A Reserve component member on active duty under a call or order to active duty specifying a period of 31 days or more, who incurs or aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line of duty shall, with the member's consent, be continued on active duty upon the expiration of call or order to active duty until the member is determined fit for duty or the member is separated or retired as a result of a Disability Evaluation System determination." This did not occur for her second knee replacement.  She was released from active duty on 23 May 2011 without being provided time to recover after a total joint replacement of her right knee.  

She proudly served over 30 years and respectfully asks the Board review and correct the errors and injustices in her record.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Air National Guard.

On 18 November 2009, an LOD found the applicant’s knee conditions had been chronic and dated back to 1985, while on duty.  The condition was categorized as both arthritic and degenerative in nature.  The provider found the medical path of the condition was surgery, regardless of the events that occurred on while on orders.  The provider further noted the applicant’s fall in June 2009 highlighted how far her knee had degenerated but opined that it did not further contribute to the medical outcome.  The provider recommended a finding of EPTS-LOD Not Applicable. 

On 6 December 2009, the staff judge advocate concurred with the recommendation.  On 11 December 2009, the appointing authority concurred and found the condition existed prior to service-LOD not applicable.  On 12 January 2010, NGB/A1 found incident In the Line of Duty.  

On 23 November 2010, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found that while the applicant’s total knew replacement would normally be incompatible with the rigors of military service, the Board noted the applicant was within one year of an approved retirement date.  In accordance with AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and Separation para 3.17, the presumption of fitness was applied and it was recommended the applicant be returned to duty.  She had not missed any days of work within the previous 90 days due to issues with her knee.  

On 7 December 2010, the applicant noted that she did not agree with the findings and recommendation of the IPEB and requested a formal hearing of her case.  She submitted written justification for the Board’s consideration.

On 31 January 2011, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) found the applicant’s total left knee replacement was not likely to change over the next several years and that it prevented her from reasonably performing the duties of her office, grade, rank or rating.  The FPEB found her unfit and recommended she be permanently retired with a disability rating of 30%.  The FPEB also found the unfitting condition was not combat related.

On 2 February 2011, the applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the FPEB.

On 23 May 2011, the applicant was permanently disability retired in the grade of colonel.  She was credited with 30 years, 6 months and 18 days of service.  According to her retirement order, the disability was not received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred during a period of war. 

On 6 May 2014, after requesting her DD Form 214 be corrected, the applicant was notified that a new DD Form 214 was issued to reflect she was retired by permanent disability.  She was reissued an NGB 22 discharging her from the Air National Guard on 23 May 2011.  The applicant was also notified that the total number of years and months for her primary specialty in item 11 could not be changed as it accurately reflected the total active service performed during that tour.

On 6 October 2014, per the applicant’s request, her case was administratively closed.  On 19 February 2015, per the applicant’s request, the case was reopened. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C through E. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial.  The applicant contends that she injured her left knee when she tripped on the lower flap of a tent during an Operational Readiness Exercise.  Per AFI 36-3212, section 3 .26,Attachment 1, "Armed Conflict-Conflict between nations or other contestants entailing the physical destruction of, or injury to, one another's armed forces.  Armed conflict exists if the direct use of physical force endangers the lives or safety of members of the armed services of a nation, belligerent power, coalition, or faction. Armed conflict includes war, expedition, occupation of an area or territory, battle, skirmish, raid, invasion, rebellion, insurrection, guerrilla action, riot, or any other action in which Air Force military personnel engage a hostile or belligerent nation, faction, or force. It also includes incidents involving a member while interned as a POW or while detained against his or her will in custody of a hostile or belligerent force or while escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, POW or detained status.  Instrumentality of War- A vehicle, vessel, or device designed primarily for Military Service and intended for use in such Service at the time of the occurrence of the injury. It may also be a vehicle, vessel, or device not designed primarily for Military Service if use of or occurrence involving such a vehicle, vessel, or device subjects the individual to a hazard peculiar to Military Service. This use or occurrence differs from the use or occurrence under similar circumstances in civilian pursuits. There must be a direct causal relationship between the use of the instrumentality of war and the disability, and the disability must be incurred incident to a hazard or risk of the service. "

Air Force Instruction 36-3212, section 3.27.21, states: "Combat-Related: The IPEB will make a combat-related disability determination for: Armed Conflict, Extra Hazardous Service, Conditions Simulating War and Instrumentality of War.

If she felt that her knee pain and the eventual need for the knee replacement was caused by the tripping on the tent flap and wanted it to be classified as combat related, she had two opportunities to appeal for that to be considered.  Based on definition, the facts and circumstances involved, the IPEB and FPEB determined that applicant's medical condition was not caused by an instrumentality of war or a direct result of armed conflict. 

A preponderance of the evidence reflects no error or injustice occurred during the disability process.

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

NGB/SGPA recommends denial.  The applicant was on orders from 5 to 6 June 2009, performing a "war" exercise at her home station.  During that time, she injured her left knee while performing evasive maneuvers.  According to the documents submitted, the LOD was not completed until November 2009.  The LOD was completed at the unit level and was marked as "Existed Prior to Service-LOD not applicable". 

The LOD was submitted to the National Guard Bureau and was overturned to 'In the Line of Duty" in December 2009. The applicant's injury led to her MEB.  Air National Guard members' are only eligible for MEB processing for conditions found "In the Line of Duty".  The applicant only had one condition that was eligible for MEB processing.  Despite having other medical issues, those medical issues were not caused or aggravated by her military service.

As far as the CRSC, the applicant was performing an exercise at her home station.  She was not in combat or in a combat zone when the injury occurred.  The applicant's LOD was corrected by NGB in 2009.  The MEB process will compensate conditions for members who are found unfit and have conditions that are "In the Line of Duty". The applicant only has one condition that was "In the Line of Duty". The applicant was not in a combat zone or in combat and is not eligible for CRSC.

A complete copy of the NGB/SGPA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  The applicant raises issues regarding the LOD, MEB and PEB processes.  She alleges errors were committed because the LOD and/or PEB did not conclude the injury to her left knee was combat-related, and the MEB failed to discuss the injuries to her right knee.

The first step of a disability process is a MEB, which consists of a physical examination of the service member to capture the history of their medical conditions.  If a member is not satisfied that all of their medical conditions are included in the medical report, they may request an appointed independent medical reviewer to assist them in reporting all of their medical issues. The AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, block 1OE, asks if the disability was incurred in a combat zone or incurred during the performance of duty in a combat-related operation.  The FPEB answered "no".  If the injury occurred under conditions simulating war, such as a "war" exercise, then per DoDI 1332.38, para. E3.P5.2.2.3, the injury could be considered combat­related.  However, the FPEB stated in its rational, which is consistent with the LOD, the direct cause of the left knee injury was the fall on a skiing trip while the member was on active duty several years ago.  She underwent a left knee replacement in December 2009.  This finding is consistent with the applicant's statement that she injured her left knee on a skiing trip in the 1980's.

The FPEB did not address the circumstances of the applicant falling in the tent, but based their decision on the LOD dated 18 November 2009.  The Board found her left knee condition was chronic and dated back to 1985, while she was on active duty with the Air Force.  The LOD stated the fall on 6 June 2006 highlighted how far her knee had degenerated, and it stated the fall did not contribute to the medical outcome.  Therefore, the injury was not defined as combat­related.  Unless the FPEB has reasonable cause to believe the LOD findings appear to be contrary to the evidence, the FPEB is required to follow the findings of the LOD per DoDI 1332.38, para. E3.P4.4.2.2.  

The letter from AFPC/DPSDC denying the applicant combat-related special compensation explained that incurring a disability during a period simulating war is not sufficient by itself to support a combat-related determination.  There must be a definite, documented, causal relationship between the simulated armed conflict and the resulting disability.  The LOD clearly stated that the incident did not contribute to her medical outcome that had originated from a non-combat incident, so both the FPEB and AFPC/DPSDC had basis to find the left knee injury to be a non-combat-related injury.  There is no evidence an error was committed for determining she did not have a combat-related injury and denying her combat­related special compensation.

The applicant contends that she had her second knee (right) replacement in May 2011 while still serving on active duty, so it was an error for the MEB and PEB not to evaluate her right knee.  She underwent surgery to have her right knee replaced on 11 May 2009, 12 days prior to her disability retirement for her left knee.  The applicant contends that DoDI 1241.2, para. 6.6.3.2, allows Reserve members on orders for 31 days or more to remain on active duty until they are fit for duty or retired as a result of the disability evaluation system determination.   She alleges there was an error because she was released from active duty on 23 May 2011, without being provided time to recover from surgery or from completing the MEB/PEB process for her right knee replacement.

At the time of the second knee replacement, SAF/AA policy letter dated 8 December 2006, was applicable.  It stated that members of the Reserve who are released from active duty, who subsequently become unable to perform military duties as a result of an injury and/or illness incurred or aggravated in the LOD, may be eligible to return to active duty until they are returned to duty or process through the disability system.  The policy requires the member to request or apply for active duty orders at their unit and wing level.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to remain on active duty.  In addition, DoDI 1241.2, cited by the applicant, also requires the injury to have been incurred or aggravated in the LOD.  There is no evidence her right knee was injured or aggravated in the LOD.  The evidence from her line of duty investigation states that her fall during her military training did not aggravate her existing injuries.  Therefore, there is no evidence of an error.

If the applicant believes the PEB should have considered her right knee injury at the same time as her left knee injury, then the disability process is set up to assist her with this remedy.  As mentioned above, the disability process allows a member to request an independent reviewer when the member does not believe the MEB provided a complete review of the medical history.  The member is allowed to appeal the IPEB findings to the FPEB when the member does not concur with the findings; the applicant did appeal.  The applicant could have consulted her attorney who represented her at the FPEB hearing.  She could have appealed her FPEB findings regarding her left knee to the SAF/MRB and argued there was an error for not evaluating her right knee.  She also could have requested an LOD from her National Guard unit or requested a reinvestigation if she believed the first LOD investigation should have also covered her right knee per AFI 36-2910, para. 4.2.   The applicant could have requested her medical provider refer her to a MEB for her right knee, which would have led to a PEB.  She had served as a Medical Commander for over a decade and should have been familiar with the MEB process.  There are many processes established for which she could have availed herself.  There is no evidence the PEB committed an error by not considering her right knee in the disability process or failed to follow any of the processes.

The applicant's last contention is that the LOD was not conducted properly.  According to DoDI 1332.38, para. E3.P4.4.l, the LOD, when required, shall be used during the PEB to establish whether the disability was incurred or aggravated while the member was in duty status.  LODs are material evidence considered by the PEB.  In this case, the FPEB explained its rationale, which is consistent with the applicant's factual contention that she fell in a tent while performing duties in a "war" exercise.  The issue in the LOD related to the origin of the left knee injury, and the findings were based on medical evidence.  Although the fall occurred during the "war" exercise, it did not cause any additional injury.  Nevertheless, she received a 30% disability rating and permanent retirement because was unfit to perform her military duties.  She was presumed satisfied with the findings because she chose not to appeal the findings to SAF/MRB.  There is no evidence the PEB made an error by considering the facts of the LOD.

To obtain relief, the applicant must show by a preponderance of the evidence some error warranting corrective action by the board.  In this case, the applicant did not establish an error warranting corrective action in this case

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states the advisory opinions do not reflect a fair, impartial or fully informed review of her case.  The opinions contain significant errors, omissions, and indicate a general lack of understanding about her case. 

She attached a copy of her LOD (AF IMT 348) as she did in her original submission.  However, this time she marked it to show the specific errors in detail.  For each of these indicated errors, she included detailed explanations.  She believes they will help ensure readers understand the specific errors made on the LOD.  The authors of three of the advisory opinions failed to understand how critical the request for correction to her LOD is to the entire case.

The authors of three advisory opinions failed to understand the request to reaccomplish an MEB after her LOD was corrected.  She has made every attempt to keep the emotion out of her original submission.  However, now she feels compelled to tell you that she has given her heart and soul to the Air Force and the Air National Guard since she was 21 years old. The experiences she describes in the original submission affect her feelings about her entire service career.  The wing treated her as someone who was trying to cheat the government.  She always helped he Wing members, yet nobody assisted her through the process.  She may not have been a physician, but she was a very competent nurse who still knows that if you need a joint replacement you want to do this as late in life as possible, not early. 

She respectfully requests the Board read the entirety of her submissions, including supporting attachments to each before rendering a decision on her requests.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

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 carefully considered the applicant’s complete submission, to include her response to the Air Force advisories in judging the merits of the case; however, we were not persuaded that a change in the record is warranted.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant was afforded due process through the disability evaluation system.  While we note there were some administrative errors, we do not find the administrative errors rise to the level of an injustice to the applicant.  Additionally, in her response to the Air Force advisories, the applicant notes administrative errors by the advisory writers.  We thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s case and note we have a clear grasp of the applicant’s request, as well as, her contentions.  

4.  The applicant contends there were errors in her LOD that led to her MEB/PEB being incorrectly processed which ultimately led to her being awarded a low disability rating.  While the applicant contends there were multiple errors in her LOD, we find the LOD, extensively listed the applicant’s long-standing issues with her knee which dated back to 1985.  The LOD also noted the applicant was considering a total knee replacement in March 2009, months prior to her fall.  Therefore, we agree with the National Guard Bureau’s finding that applicant’s fall “highlighted how far her knee had already degenerated” and that her left knee end stage degenerative joint disease was “In the Line of Duty” was proper.  With regard to the applicant’s processing through the Disability Evaluation System, we do not find the processing, to include the finding the applicant’s disease or injury was combat related was in error or improper.  As noted by AFPC/JA there must be a definite, documented, casual relationship between simulated armed conflict and the resulting disability; incurring a disability during a period simulating war is not sufficient by itself to support a combat-related determination.  Therefore, we also find the MEB and subsequent permanent disability retirement were properly processed.  

5.  With regard to the applicant’s contention that there were other medical conditions that should have been considered during her MEB.  As NGB/SGPA notes, the applicant’s other medical issues were not caused or aggravated by military service.  The military Disability Evaluation System (DES) was established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force.  By law, the DES can only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically render a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only to the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future occurrences.  There was no evidence submitted to show there were any other medical conditions that affected the applicant’s ability to perform her duties or would been cause for career termination.  Therefore, the applicant’s request to change her LOD and allow her another MEB, as well as, the applicant’s request for a change in her retirement date and retroactive pay, is not favorably considered.  

6.  Additionally, the applicant has requested her DD Form 214, block 11, be corrected to reflect the total number of years she served in her primary specialty.  The applicant was previously notified by AFPC/DPTS that the DD Form 214 only reflects the active service performed during that period of service.  Accordingly, that portion of her request is not favorably considered.  We do note the applicant was issued a corrected DD Form 214, which still contains errors.  Specifically, the applicant’s primary specialty lists her an Emergency Services Physician which will be administratively corrected by APFC/DPTS.  We are grateful for the applicant’s service to our Nation; regrettably, other than the administrative corrections noted, we find no basis to recommend approval of the requested relief.

7.  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-2014-00419 in Executive Session on 10 March 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00419 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 18 Mar 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, NGB/SGPA, dated 31 Mar 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 28 May 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Sep 14.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 16 Feb 15, 
                 w/atchs.