RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-00276

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
 	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His records be corrected to show he was medically retired due to asthma.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for a nickel allergy and asthma and was found unfit for duty for his nickel allergy (rated 0%) and his asthma was found not to be an unfitting condition (rated 30%).  While in the military as a Low Observable Aircraft Structural Maintenance Craftsman on the F-22 Raptor, he was exposed to nickel, metals, and chemicals on a daily basis; however, he downplayed his asthma in hopes to remain on active duty.  

Since separating, he has received care at the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) and his civilian provider for asthma.  The VA reevaluated his asthma and increased his rating to 60% instead of the original 30%.  He was also diagnosed with hypertension shortly after separation and states he had high blood pressure the last couple of years on active duty.  If asthma was truly not an unfitting condition, he would not have been disqualified for entry into the San Antonio Air National Guard (ANG), San Antonio Air Force Reserve, and the Fort Worth ANG due to his asthma since separating from the Air Force.    

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is an honorably discharged Air Force staff sergeant (E-5). 

DD Form 4, Enlistment Document, shows the applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 3 Jan 12 for six years.

AF IMT 618, Medical Board Report, shows that on 4 Feb 16 the applicant was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of nickel allergy and asthma.

AF Form 356, Informal PEB Findings, dated 9 Mar 16, shows the IPEB found the applicant’s medical condition, nickel allergy, was not compatible with the long-term rigors of military service and prevented him from reasonably performing the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.  The IPEB recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 0% IAW DoD guidance for applying the VASRD.  The IPEB opined the asthma had not been and was not unfitting and no restrictions were referable for asthma and did not require profiling.

AF Form 1180, Actions on PEB Findings, shows on 24 Mar 16, the applicant disagreed with the IPEB findings and requested a formal hearing of his case.

AF Form 356 shows on 20 May 16, the Formal PEB (FPEB) agreed with the IPEB and determined that the applicant’s medical condition, nickel allergy, was not compatible with the long-term rigors of military service.  Accordingly, the FPEB found him unfit and recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 0% IAW DoD guidance for applying the VASRD.  The FPEB noticed the applicant’s local military treatment facility performed a review of the VA Compensation and Pension exam on 2 Feb 16 and determined that no other conditions were unfitting.  The FPEB concurred with that assessment.

AF Form 1180 shows that on 29 Jun 16, the applicant appealed the PEB findings to Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) to find him fit for duty.

On 14 Sep 16, SAF concurred with the determination of the previous physical evaluation boards in recommending discharge with severance pay at a disability rating of zero percent under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1203.  This disability rating was determined based on the VASRD in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. 

DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, shows that on 28 Dec 16 the applicant was discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3212, Disability, Severance Pay, Non-Combat (Enhanced) with the corresponding separation code of JGA and reentry code 2Q.

VA Summary of Benefits Report dated 28 Aug 17, provided by the applicant, shows his “combined service connected evaluation is 60%.”

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFRBA Medical Advisor recommends denying the application.  The applicant’s asthma did not prevent him from reasonably performing the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.  Given the applicant’s apparent lack of need for rescue breathing treatments with Albuterol, and his consistent “excellent” Fitness Assessments, the Medical Advisor opines there was no immediate risk to health and safety of the applicant and agrees with the determinations made by previous boards and SAFPC, each which did not find the applicant’s asthma individually unfitting.  The Medical Advisor acknowledged the applicant’s statement that he “downplayed his asthma, with hopes of remaining of active duty,” but reminds him that truthfulness in medical interactions and disclosures is what guides the treatment of our Service members; which is then utilized to protect both the interests of the service member and the institution. The Board may utilize the applicant’s statement in its discretion to grant or deny his petition.  Finally, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service-incurred, without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or the narrative reason for separation.  This is the reason why an individual can be found unfit or separated for one reason and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA for one or more medical conditions that were service-connected, but not proven militarily unfitting at the time of release from military service.  The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service connected medical condition may vary (improve or worsen, affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the veteran.  Significant evidence shows, despite the diagnosis of asthma, the applicant performed his military duties without impact or duty restrictions imposed from this condition.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 5 Nov 20 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFRBA Medical Advisor and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.    Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2020-00276 in Executive Session on 6 Dec 20:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 16 Sep 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFRBA Medical Advisor, dated 23 Oct 20.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 5 Nov 20.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings pertaining to Docket Number BC-2020-00276, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.