RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03616

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His fitness for duty case be submitted to the Disability Evaluation System (DES) and his Line of Duty (LOD) determinations for his medical conditions (Reactive Airway Disease and Obstructive Sleep Apnea) be reconsidered.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His medical conditions and onset of symptoms soon after arrival at Balad Air Base, Iraq, were more likely than not deployment related.  Furthermore, due to an administrative error, his unit failed to process his disability evaluation.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Army on 1 Aug 89.

On 31 Jan 96, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “weight control failure” and credited with six years and six months of active service.  

After a break in service, the applicant reentered the Regular Army on 10 Jun 98, and on 31 Jan 01, was furnished an honorable discharge, credited with 2 years, 7 months, and 21 days of active service, and provided disability severance pay.  

On 4 Nov 04, the applicant enlisted with the Air Force Reserve. 

From 8 Sep 08 to 18 Feb 09, the applicant was mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  

On 11 Jul 10, the applicant was notified by his evaluator that he was to receive a referral Enlisted Performance Report (reporting period of 7 Nov 07 to 6 Nov 09) for failing to meet fitness standards.  

On 17 Feb 12, the Air Force Reserve Command Vice Commander (AFRC/CV) decided the applicant’s medical diagnoses of Reactive Airway Disease and Obstructive Sleep Apnea were Existed Prior to Service-Line of Duty Not Applicable.

According to his the AF Form 1411, Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve/Air National Guard, dated 14 Feb 14, his current enlistment at the time was extended for the fifth time for a total of 53 months for the purpose of a Medical Evaluation Board.  

On 4 Apr 15, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force Reserve upon reaching his Expiration Term of Service (ETS).  

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/SGO recommends denial indicating that the applicant would not have been entitled to disability consideration even though he should have been afforded a determination of his medical qualification for continued service.  The applicant’s service treatment record reflects a long standing history of allergy, wheezing, and Reactive Airway Disease-like symptoms dating back to his childhood.  The medical history presented by the applicant in the 12 Nov 14 letter from the National Jewish Health accomplished after the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (DVA) denial is materially different and inconsistent with what was presented to the DVA and present in the service treatment record.  In addition, there was no requirement for his fitness for duty determination to be process under the DES as the LOD determination findings for both potentially disqualifying conditions were found to be Existing Prior to Service-LOD/not applicable (NA).  AFRC/SGO has reviewed historical case files on hand and the information provided by the applicant and find that had a case been presented to the DES, he would have been found medically qualified and placed on and Assignment Limitation Code due to mild persistent asthma and returned to duty; therefore, would not have been required to be submitted to the Physical Evaluation Board.  

A complete copy of the ARPC/SGO 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 24 Aug 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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.  Sufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error in the applicant’s medical evaluation processing and he should have been afforded a determination of his medical qualification for continued service.  However, we took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case and 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 injustice.  We agree with the OPR’s rationale that had the applicant been afforded a medical qualification determination, he would have been found medically qualified for continued service, placed on an Assignment Limitation Code for mild asthma, and not submitted for a Physical Evaluation Board allowing his command to discharge the applicant upon reaching his Expiration Term of Service (ETS).  We further agree that his Line of Duty (LOD) determination findings are accurately reflected in his record noting the applicant’s record reflects a history of allergy, wheezing, and Reactive Airway Disease-like symptoms.  Additionally, although the applicant contends his Reactive Airway Disease and Obstructive Sleep Apnea were related to his deployment, the Institute of Medicine has found no evidence to support deployment exposure causes reactive airway disease.  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-2015-03616 in Executive Session on 25 Jan 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03616 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFRC/SGO, dated 10 Jun 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Aug 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.