AIR FORCE BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 96-02626 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

Her retirement orders be amended to indicate she was injured in 
the line of duty  (LOD) as a direct result of and during a period 
of war; she be placed on the Temporary Disability Retirement List 
(TDRL) [presumably] as of 19 January 1991; she be given a DD Form 
214 to show all military service completed  [14 Jan 91 -  7 Feb 951 
to include medical retirement at 30%. 

r

t

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
Administrative oversight  resulted  in errors on the DD Form  214 
she  received.  Her  retirement  orders  fail  to  indicate  service- 
connected injury and  she has not been  issued  a DD Form  214  to 
indicate completed military service and medical discharge  [sic] . 
She should have been placed  on the TDRL at  the time of  injury 
rather than being made to report for duty. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 16 May 1986  for 
a period of six years. 

ained a right pelvi 
Strategic Hospital, 

She was  ordered  to  active  duty  in direct  support  of  Operation 
Desert  Storm/Desert  Shield  (ODS/S)  with  a  report  date  of 
15 January 1991 and a release date of  18 January 1991.  She  was 
injured  on  18  January  1991  while  downloadins  a  C-130.  She 
e and wa;  admitted to the 
.  Although her active duty 
uring this period was 
nsecutive davs, it was in 
support of ODS/S. Therefore, she was issued a DD FoGm '214 for the 
period  14-18 January 1991,  which reflects that she was released 
from active duty on 18 January 1991 due  to demobilization. She 
was released from the hospital on 28 January 1991. 
Apparently  applicant  was  again  ordered  to  active  duty  for  a 
period of 60 days beginning 28 January 1991  (this tour was not in 
support of  ODS/S).  However, on 28  January 1991,  she was  found 

not medically qualified for mobility or worldwide duty and placed 
on restricted profile for two months for right pelvis  fracture. 
On  8 February  1991, an  LOD  determination  found  her  injury  on 
18 January 1991 to be  in the LOD.  She was again released from 
active duty on 11 February 1991. 

for  the 

to 

second  time 

She was placed on restricted profile  (no lifting over 10 lbs, no 
running/jumping/aerobics---may perform duty at home station only) 
on 22 April  1991 for medical  evaluation to determine worldwide 
duty  status;  at  this  time  applicant  was  found  not  medically 
qualified for worldwide duty.  She received a similar profile on 
6 June  1992. 
On  28  October  1992,  she  received  a  ''no 
restrictions"  profile and was  found to be world-wide qualified. 
Also  on  28 October  1992,  her  16  May  1986  reenlistment  was 
extended 
complete  medical 
evaluation/determination.  She again received restricted profiles 
(no  lifting  over  10  lbs,  no  running/jumping/aerobics---may 
perform  duty at home  station only) on 25 July 1993 and  6 April 
1994.  However, apparently, she was able to participate in the 
Reserves  during  these  periods  since  her  Service  History/Point 
Credit Summary reflects that she earned sufficient points for her 
retirement/retention  (R/R) years ending  900303, 910303, 920303, 
930303 and 940303 to be satisfactory years of Federal Service. 
On  13  July  1994, she was  placed  on  a  "no duty"  profile  until 
12 July 1995 pending medical board action due to healed fracture 
.  right interior superior pubic rami.  She was found not worldwide 
qualified and was not authorized to participate  in the Reserves 
for pay or points. 
On 19 September 1994, her 16 May  1986 reenlistment was extended 
for  the  eighth  time,  for  a  total  of  35  months,  in  order  to 
complete the medical evaluation. 

On  2  February  1995, she was  notified  that  she  was  physically 
unfit  for further military  service and placed  on the  Permanent 
Disability Retired List  (PDRL) with a disability rating of 30% 
Per Special Orders No. ACD-0682, dated 18 January 1995, applicant 
was permanently retired effective 8 February 1995 in the grade of 
staff sergeant with a 30% disability.  The orders indicated that 
her disability was  not received in the LOD as a direct result of 
armed  conflict  or  caused  by  an  instrumentality  of  war  and 
incurred in LOD during a period  of war.  She had  20 years, 11 
months, and 28 days of Federal Military Service.  She was not on 
active duty at the time. 

Pursuant  to  the  AFBCMR  Staff's request  for  an  additional  Air 
Force evaluation, applicant's case was forwarded to the Secretary 
of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council  (SAFPC). Based  on  their 
determination, applicant's  retirement order, SO ACD-0682, was 
administratively amended by SO ACD-344, dated 6 January 1998, to 
reflect that her disability was  received in the LOD as a direct 
result of armed conflict or caused by  an instrumentality of war 

2 

96-02626 

and incurred in the LOD during a period of war.  Applicant was so 
notified  by  the  Chief,  Disability  Operation  Branch,  HQ 
AFPC/DPPDS, on 6 January 1998. 
She currently has a rating of 10% from the Department of Veterans 
Affairs  (DVA) for I'condition of the skeletal system. I' 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Chief, Management Support Office, HQ ARPC/DRSS, reviewed this 
appeal and states that normally a member must  serve a minimum of 
90  consecutive  days  of  active  duty  before  a  DD  Form  214  is 
authorized. 
However, for  those ordered  to  active  duty  in 
support of ODS/S, only one day was required for a DD Form 214. 
Therefore,  the  applicant  was  issued  a DD Form 214  for  the 
15-18 January  1991 period  because  it  was  in  direct  support of 
ODS/S.  She was ordered to active duty for a period of  60 days 
effective 28 January 1991, but  this tour was not  in support of 
ODS/S.  Therefore, a DD Form 214 was not authorized.  While there 
were  other  training  periods  between  11  February  1991  and  her 
retirement on 8 February 1995, none were of sufficient types or 
lengths  to  authorize  another  DD  Form  214. 
Disapproval  is 
recommended. 
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is 
at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief,  Physical  Disability  Division,  HQ  AFPC/DPPD,  also 
reviewed  this  application  and  indicates  that,  regarding 
ttinstrumentality of  wart1 issues, the  intent  of  the  law was  to 
appropriately  compensate  personnel  who  are  injured  or  whose 
careers are otherwise cut  short when  they incur  injuries while 
engaged  in  activities  preparing  for  war  or  under  conditions 
simulating war.  The underlying principle of granting disability 
benefits  based  upon  an  I'instrumentality  of  war"  was  the 
recognition that operating, handling or even being  in proximity 
to an instrumentality of war is an additional hazard of military 
life.  Policy guidance indicated that there must be a definitive 
causal  relationship  between  the  injury  caused  by  the 
instrumentality  and  the  unfitting  condition  that  leads  to  the 
member's  retirement  or  separation.  An  injury  need  not  be 
unfitting at the time of  its occurrence but  if it progresses to 
the point of unfitness, then it is deemed to have been caused by 
an instrumentality of war.  Applicant's records substantiate that 
the  injury  was  incurred  in  the  LOD  and  that  the  injury  was 
sustained while she was performing a wartime function.  The Chief 
recommends  that  the  applicant's request  for  correction  to  her 
retirement orders, SO ACD-0682, be granted. 
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

3 

96-02626 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  reviewed the  evaluations and contends that  a DD  Form 
214 reflecting her injury will afford her treatment at military 
hospitals as well  as more understanding treatment at Department 
of Veterans Affairs  (DVA) facilities.  Her appeal for more  than 
10%  [presumably with  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs]  was 
denied as non-service connected.  The military retirement orders 
just aren't acceptable to all of  the VA  Ilexpertsll  that  she has 
consulted.  Since the injury she received while on active duty in 
1991 caused her to be permanently retired for disability in 1995, 
she should have been placed on the TDRL in 1991 and not ordered 
to participate while disabled.  She believes her placement first 
on active duty on 28 January 1991 and subsequently on the Retired 
Reserve  List  in 1995  was  inadvertent.  She instead  should have 
been put on medical hold in 1991, placed on the TDRL and issued a 
DD Form 214 showing a medical retirement at 30%. 
Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Physical  Disability  Division,  HQ  AFPC/DPPD,  again 
reviewed this appeal and  states that  the  applicant's file does 
not support her request for placement on the TDRL in 1991.  There 
is no evidence or documentation to support an unfit finding prior 
to  January  1995,  when  officials  within  the  Office  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  directed  her  permanent  disability 
retirement.  The applicant perhaps still questions the validity 
of her retirement orders due to a lack of fund cite and signature 
of the issuing official.  The Chief assures her that the orders 
in question are valid, complete and in accordance with governing 
directives.  The format used to create her disability retirement 
order  is  used  for  all  disability  retirements. 
The  Chief 
reaffirms his original recommendation that her retirement orders 
reflect  that  her  disability  was  received  in  LOD  as  a  direct 
result of armed conflict or caused by  an instrumentality of war 
and  incurred in the LOD  during a period  of  war  [ T h i s   has  been 
done  administratively  - - -  See  Statement  of  F a c t s   a b o v e . ] .  
However, no further correction is justified. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  additional Air  Force  evaluation, with 
attachments, is at Exhibit G. 
The  Deputy  Director,  Directorate  of  Customer  Assistance,  HQ 
ARPC/DR, states that since the applicant was not on active duty 
status at the time she was retired on 7 February 1995, a DD Form 
214  is  not  authorized.  The  Deputy  Director  concurs  with  HQ 
AFPC/DPPD%  recommendation regarding the Ilinstrumentality of war" 
issue. 

4 

96-02626 

A  complete  copy  of  the  additional Air  Force  evaluation  is  at 
Exhibit H. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 
Applicant provided two responses, reiterating that she needs a DD 
Form  214  that  includes  the  dates  14  January  1991  to  her 
retirement  of  7 February  1995. 
She  wants  any  time  of  non- 
participation  to  be  reflected  as  time  lost  per  Physical 
Evaluation Board.  The injury took place while she was on active 
duty.  The  active  duty  doctors  thought  she  should  have  been 
She should have been placed on the TDRL and given a 
"boarded. 'I 
DD  Form  214  and  then  placed  on  the  PDRL.  The  DVA  doesn't 
understand  why  this was  not  accomplished.  A  new  DD  Form  214 
would facilitate her conversion of disability rating with the DVA 
as she is appealing for a higher rating. 

Applicant's complete responses, with attachments, are at Exhibit 
J. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2 .   The application was timely filed. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice. 
Applicant's request to have her 18 January 1995 retirement order 
reflect that her disability was received in the LOD as a direct 
result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of  war 
and  incurred  in  the  LOD  during  a  period  of  war  was 
administratively accomplished on 6 January 1998,  and she was so 
notified by HQ AFPC/DPPDS. Therefore, the only matters remaining 
for  this  Board's  consideration  pertain  to  her  request  f o r  
placement on the TDRL as of 19 January 1991 and issuance of a new 
DD Form  214 covering the period  from 14 January  1991 until h e r  
retirement on  7 February  1995.  After  a  thorough  review of  the 
evidence of record and applicant's submission, and subsequent to 
the administrative corrections made to her retirement orders, we 
are not persuaded that she remains the victim of either an error 
or  an  injustice.  Her  contentions are  duly  noted, but  we  must 
conclude  that  the  available documentation  does  not  support  an 
unfit  finding prior  to January  1995,  when  officials within  the 
Office of the Secretary of the Air Force directed her permanent 
disability retirement. Since she was not on active duty status at 
the  time  she  was  retired  on  7  February  1995,  and  we  are  not 
persuaded  that  she  should  have  been,  a  DD  Form  214  is  not 
warranted. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air 

5 

96-02626 

Force  and  adopt  the  rationale expressed  as  the  basis  for  our 
decision that, with respect to the TDRL and DD Form 214 issues, 
the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of having suffered 
either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent 
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis 
to recommend granting the relief sought 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant be  notified  that  the  evidence presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 1 4   April  1998,  under the provisions of AFI 
36- 2603 : 

Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Terry Yonkers, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149,  dated 1 5   Apr 96,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ ARPC/DRSS, dated 15 May 97,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 1 8   Feb 97 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2  Jun 97. 
Exhibit F. Applicant's Response, dated 7  Jun 97, 
Exhibit G. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 29  Oct 97. 
Exhibit H. Letter, HQ ARCP/DR, dated 23  Dec 97,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit I. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3  Feb 98. 
Exhibit J. Letters, Applicant, dated 11 &  25  Feb 97,  w/atchs. 

w/atchs. 

BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV 
Panel Chair 

6 

96-02626