RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-02426

xxxxxxxxxxxx	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His medical separation be changed to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He was medically separated for having seizures in Sep 18.  Six months prior to his discharge, he had a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) hearing and was found medically unfit to continue in the Air Force.  After seeing multiple doctors, additional medical issues arose after the fact, such as pulmonary issues characterized as asthma, due to burn pit exposure during his deployment to Djibouti, Africa.  His leadership him informed that it was too late to be reevaluated by the Disability Evaluation System (DES).  He is currently undergoing treatment for pulmonary issues with the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA).

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force technical sergeant (E-6). 

Dated 5 Dec 17, AF IMT 618, Medical Board Report, indicates the applicant was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for seizures.

On 13 Jan 18, the DVA proposed a 20 percent disability rating for his unfitting medical condition of seizures.  The DVA also provided disability ratings for several other service-connected disabilities with a combined rating of 40 percent.  

Dated 19 Jan 18, AF Form 356, Informal Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), indicates the applicant was found unfit due to his medical condition of seizures with a disability compensation rating of 20 percent with a recommendation of “Discharge with Severance Pay (DWSP).”

Dated 1 Feb 18, AF Form 1180, Action on Physical Evaluation Board Findings and Recommended Disposition, indicates the applicant disagreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB and requested a formal hearing.  

Dated 9 Mar 18, AF Form 356, Formal Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB), indicates the applicant was found unfit due to his medical condition of seizures with a disability compensation rating of 20 percent with a recommendation of DWSP.

Dated 19 Mar 18, AF Form 1180, Action on Physical Evaluation Board Findings and Recommended Disposition, indicates the applicant disagreed with the findings  and recommended disposition of the FPEB  and requested his case be referred to the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Personnel Council (SAFPC) for review and final decision.  However, he did not request a one-time reconsideration of the disability ratings for the conditions found unfitting by the PEB.  

Dated 2 Apr 18, a memorandum from the Office of Airmen’s Counsel to SAFPC reflects the applicant appealed the findings and recommendation of the FPEB.  He contends that he is fit and should be returned to duty.

Dated 2 Jul 18, the applicant’s case was reviewed by SAFPC, under the authority delegated by the SECAF for consideration of his contention to return to duty.  The Board determined his history of seizures was unfitting for military service and he should be discharged with severance pay.

Issued 27 Sep 18, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicates the applicant was discharged in the grade of TSgt after serving 12 years, 4 months and 5 days of active duty.  His narrative reason for separation is “Disability, Severance Pay, Non-Combat Related Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES).”

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The AFBCMR Medical Advisor recommends denying the applicant’s request for a medical retirement finding no evidence of an error or injustice.  The evidence submitted was not sufficient to support his claim.  The seizure condition alone was the cause for career termination and although the applicant had and continued to receive treatment for his allergic rhinitis/seasonal allergy (respiratory-type) conditions, they had not progressed to become unfitting for military service.  The military’s DES process, established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the “snapshot” in  time of separation and not based on post-service progression of disease or injury.  To the contrary, the Veteran’s Affairs (DVA), operating under a different set of laws, Title 38, U.S.C., is empowered to offer compensation for any medical condition with an established nexus with military service, without regard to its impact upon a member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for release from service, or the length of time transpired since the date of discharge.  Multiple investigative studies conducted within the DoD, DVA, U.S. Army Public Health Command, Institute of Medicine, and the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine have concluded that the evidence to date regarding open burn pit exposure, does not clearly support the inference of a specific association between deployment and chronic respiratory conditions among deployed personnel; however, such findings warrant continued investigations.

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 23 Apr 21 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 the AFBCMR 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.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

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-2020-02426 in Executive Session on 14 Jun 21:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:
Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 10 Sep 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Medical Advisor, dated 21 Apr 21.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 23 Apr 21.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.