RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03343 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His shoulder injury be considered combat related and paid as such. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was injured while on orders in Kyrgyzstan and was discharged 
because of the injury. The severance pay he is receiving is not 
for a combat related injury. It should be combat related because 
he was injured in the line of duty (LOD) in a war zone. 

 

United States Code (USC) Title 10, 1212, Disability Severance Pay, 
states, the minimum years of service of a member for purposes of 
subsection (a)(I) shall be as follows: (A) Six years in the case 
of a member separated from the armed forces for a disability 
incurred in line of duty in a combat zone (as designated by the 
Secretary of Defense for purposes of this subsection) or incurred 
during the performance of duty in combat-related operations as 
designated by the Secretary of Defense. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his AF 
IMT 348, Line of Duty Determination (LOD), and USC, Title 10. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Based on the applicant’s submission and the available records, he 
was released from the Air Force on 22 Aug 2012. The narrative 
reason for separation was “Release Due to Demobilization.” 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSDD recommends denial. DPSDD states the Informal 
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) reviewed the case on 4 Aug 
2010 and determined the condition of right shoulder pain status 
post arthroscopic surgery was unfitting for continued military 
service, and recommended discharge with severance pay (DWSP) with 
a disability rating of 10 percent, Veterans Administration 
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) Code 5304. On 5 Aug 
2010, the applicant non-concurred and requested a formal hearing 
with counsel. On 16 Nov 2010, the Formal Physical Evaluation 
Board (FPEB) reviewed the case and recommended DWSP with a 
disability rating of 10 percent, VASARD code 5304. On 17 Nov 
2010, the applicant non-concurred and requested his case, with 
rebuttal, be reviewed by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel 
Council (SAFPC). On 2 May 2011, SAFPC directed he be discharged 
and receive severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent. 
SAFPC noted: "The Board considered the member's contention/or 
permanent retirement at 30 percent disability rating and concurred 
with the disposition recommended by the previous boards to 
discharge the member with severance pay with a disability rating 
of 10 percent." At no time during the appeal process of his case 
did the applicant request the injury to his shoulder be rated as a 
combat related injury. 

 

DPSDD states the applicant relates that the injury to his right 
shoulder occurred while moving palletized water bottles to a 
hanger and flared up again near the end of his deployment while 
throwing a football and loading baggage to return home. 
Department of Defense Instruction 1332.38 states, "The fact that a 
member may have incurred a disability during a period of war or in 
an area of armed conflict, or while participating in combat 
operations is not sufficient to support this finding. There must 
be a definite causal relationship between the armed conflict and 
the resulting unfitting disability." 

 

Injuries caused by moving cases of water in an area of armed 
conflict, are not considered combat related as they do not differ 
from circumstances occurring in civilian pursuits and are not 
incident to a hazard or risk of military service. Based on 
definition, the facts and circumstances involved, the IPEB 
determined the applicant's medical conditions were not caused by 
an instrumentality of war or a direct result of armed conflict. 

 

The complete DPSDD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 17 Apr 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To 
date, a response has not been received (Exhibit D). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or 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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 this application in 
Executive Session on 31 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-03343: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Aug 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSDD, dated 26 Sep 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Apr 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair