RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00344
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated in an Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) position retroactive to
24 July 1998, with back pay and allowances, and processed through the Air
Force Disability Evaluation System (DES).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While serving in an AGR position, he developed a ratable disability that
should have resulted in his command entering him into the DES; however, his
command failed to do so.
The applicant’s counsel states that rather than processing him through the
DES, his command used his condition as justification to remove him from his
AGR position and conducted a Medical Evaluation Board as if the applicant
were a part-time guardsman.
The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS
The Chief, Personnel Operations Branch, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the application
and states that the LOD determined the injury/illness had occurred while
the applicant was on active duty, thereby entitling him to be processed
through the active duty process. However, the fact that the injury/illness
occurred while on active duty does not require the member to be reinstated
in the AGR Program. The LOD form should be taken to the nearest active
duty treatment facility so that a new Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) can be
completed and forwarded to AFPC/DPPD for a determination as to compensation
and/or benefits. AFPC will appropriately compensate the applicant for any
duty-related injury/illness.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed the application and states
that orders should be cut placing the applicant on active duty (AGR) status
for the purpose of accomplishing an MEB with disposition in the DES as
would occur with any other active member who develops a disqualifying
condition during such service. Reimbursement of back pay and allowances to
the date of removal from AGR status on 24 July 1998 should be strongly
considered to correct this obvious injustice.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The applicant’s counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and concurs with
the recommendations of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant.
Counsel’s complete responses are attached at Exhibits G and H.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. In this respect, we note the
applicant was placed in a non-flying status in June 1996 upon suffering an
anxiety disorder. During the two-year period from 1996 to 1998, the
applicant was maintained in an AGR status while undergoing psychiatric
counseling and treatment. While still in an AGR status, on 3 June 1998, an
MEB was directed to determine the applicant’s retainability in the ANG.
However, it was not conducted until after he had been removed from AGR
status and returned to part-time Guardsman status. The AFBCMR Medical
Consultant states that orders should be cut placing the applicant on AGR
status for the purpose of accomplishing an MEB with disposition in the DES
and reimbursement of back pay and allowances to the date of removal from
AGR status. In view of this and given the obvious injustice to the
applicant, we believe the interest of equity and justice can best be served
by placing the applicant applicant on AGR status for the purpose of
accomplishing an MEB with disposition in the Disability Evaluation System.
Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated
below.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was not released from extended
active duty and transferred to the New Jersey Air National Guard on 24 July
1998, but was continued in an extended active duty status in the Reserve
grade of major.
It is further recommended that he be evaluated through the Disability
Evaluation System as soon as possible to determine his fitness for
continuation on extended active duty.
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 5 July 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36 -2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 8 Nov 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Feb 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Apr 00.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Apr 00.
Exhibit G. Letter, Counsel, dated 26 Apr 00.
Exhibit H. Letter, Counsel, dated 17 Jun 00.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 02683 1
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should not have been discharged from active duty with unresolved medical issues and a Line of Duty (LOD) determination should have been initiated prior to his release from active duty. Although the applicant stated he received treatment for his medical conditions while he was on active orders, he has only provided subjective evidence following his release from active duty. If the applicant was...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02850
He contends that he has been incapacitated since Jan 98 and should have received incapacitation pay from 7 Apr 98, after his active duty status was terminated, until 22 May 01, his date of separation from the ANG. We note that in Oct 98, some nine months after he was injured, an LOD was conducted regarding the applicant’s knee injuries certifying he was incapacitated, resulting in his entitlement to incapacitation pay for the period 7 Oct 98 to 30 Mar 99. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00877
The unfavorable personnel action (reassigning her to Bolling AFB for mental fitness, indefinite suspension of her security clearance, and removal from her Department of Defense (DOD) position) taken by the military used mental health evaluations after she made a protected disclosure. DTIC so advised the applicant on 4 Jan 01, and proposed to suspend her indefinitely from active duty and pay status from her position as a GS-12 Technical Information Specialist, pending the final disposition...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03176
The complete DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends rescinding the applicants administrative discharge under the provision of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members and supplanting it with an order transferring the applicant to the Reserve Retired Section effective the date of discharge (10 Aug...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01103
Medical Evaluation Boards (MEBs) are convened to identify and assess the possible existence of an unfitting or disqualifying medical condition. It could not be established that the applicant was unable to reasonably perform his military duties due to one of more medical conditions during his military service or at the time of his release from active duty orders. In particular, we note the statements of the Air Force OPR and AFBCMR Medical Consultant which indicate that upon redeployment to...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In letters, dated 16 May and 27 July 2001, the applicant’s Senator provided copies of correspondence provided to him by the applicant and her counsel (Exhibits J and M). In further support of the appeal, counsel submits the 6 August 1982 version of the Air Force regulations governing crew rest and flight duty limitations....
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 01103
He receive military pay and Air National Guard (ANG) retirement points for the periods of time requested above. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit H. On 11 Mar 14, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration, reiterating that he sustained a shoulder injury while serving on active duty due to being electrocuted when...
A complete copy of the HQ USAF/JAG evaluation is at Exhibit F. ANG/DPFP indicated that after an additional review of the applicant’s medical documentation, and based on the fact that the applicant was injured while on duty, even though he was disqualified medically for duty in Dec 98, the applicant should have been found LOD-Yes for his spinal injury. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1998-02164
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1998-02164 INDEX CODE: 136.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to his Active Guard Reserve (AGR) position with the Pennsylvania Air National Guard (PAANG) and he be promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02837
His AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of the USAF Physical Evaluation Board, states his disability was incurred in the LOD in time of war or national emergency or after 14 Sep 78 and that the disability was not incurred in a combat zone or incurred performance duty in combat-related operations. The applicant did not provide any new medical evidence for the Board during any of his TDRL re-evaluations. In this respect, we note that the Informal Physical Evaluation Board...