RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02343 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His condition of Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) be changed to reflect “In the Line of Duty” (ILOD) rather than “Existed Prior to Service (EPTS) – Line of Duty Not Applicable.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: There is a definite correlation between pain and OSA. In 2007, he injured his lower back and left leg, which caused severe pain in his back and the beginning of his difficulties sleeping. He was diagnosed with bulging disks at L3, L4, and L5. He also suffered from a complete tear of his right bicep tendon in 2008. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his Informal LOD, a memorandum concerning the Reinvestigation of Final Determination, electronic communications, sleep study medical documentation, and a response to a congressional inquiry. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the United States Air Force Reserve (AFRES) in the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8). While serving on active duty orders from 29 November 2009 to 6 April 2010, he was diagnosed with OSA. An Informal LOD determination, dated 26 April 2010, found the applicant’s condition of OSA as “EPTS-LOD Not Applicable.” The applicant exercised his right to a reinvestigation in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2910, Chapter 4, which was denied both by the Appointing Authority and the Approving Authority on 24 February 2011. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/SGP recommends denial. SGP states an LOD determination is based on the onset of the disease and not the manifestation of symptoms. Additionally, the EPTS finding is based on the period of service during which the symptoms manifested themselves, not the member’s entry into the service. This negates the applicant’s assertion it should be ILOD because he didn’t have the condition upon entering the service. He also believes Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 1207A; the “8-year rule” should apply to his case. However, this statute is for disability consideration and conditions that render service members unfit for military duty and can only be applied by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). A disability case submitted to the PEB would allow the appropriate authority to apply the “8- year rule” if he was found unfit for military service. However, the applicant has already undergone Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing and was returned to duty on 27 January 2011. SGP indicates the applicant also feels the pain from his service- connected orthopedic condition is the cause of OSA. While the pain may be the cause of another sleep disorder, it is medically unrelated to OSA. As noted in the two previous reviews of his LODs, intrinsic contributions to OSA, such as obesity and physiologic airway obstruction are, in the applicant’s case, likely a far more significant contributing factor and neither of these was impacted or worsened by military service. His LOD and re-investigation were thoroughly reviewed, processed, and ruled upon by the regulation designated authorities. “EPTS-LOD Not Applicable” was the most prudent finding in accordance with all laws, regulations, and policies. The complete SGP 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 November 2011 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Air Force office of primary responsibility 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. 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-2011-02343 in Executive Session on 6 March 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02343: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/SGP, not dated. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 11.