RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00064 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He receive a permanent disability retirement with a 40 
percent disability rating. 

 

2. He receive back retirement pay from the date he would have 
been retired had the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) 
decision of 28 Mar 08 been sustained to the present. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The applicant’s counsel submits his appeal in a four-page brief 
with 10 attachments. Counsel argues the basis for the Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB) was a wrist injury which occurred in Jun 
01, and was in the line of duty (LOD). The MEB Narrative Summary 
dated 16 Sep 07, and reaffirmed on 13 Nov 07, was materially 
wrong. The applicant did not have “arthroscopic repair and 
debridement of the injury in Jan 02,” as stated in the Narrative 
Summary. The treating physician, in Jan 02, confirmed on 11 Feb 
02, that what actually occurred was an arthroscopic examination 
to confirm damage. Ligament reconstructive was offered, but the 
medical advice was not to do surgical intervention. The 
unrepaired injury was treated conservatively, but was not 
repaired or completely healed. 

 

In 5 Mar 05, the injury reappeared while applicant was on his 
civilian job in Mar 05. He underwent a full right wrist fusion 
in Apr 07. 

 

On 8 Feb 08, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) 
concluded the injury occurred while the applicant was a civilian, 
and therefore declared the injury to be existed prior to service 
(EPTS). 

 

On 28 Mar 08, the FPEB reversed the decision of the IPEB and 
awarded the applicant a 40 percent permanent disability 
retirement for the right wrist fusion. The FPEB stated the 
fusion was the result of worsening symptoms. This reflected the 
reality there was no repair of the underlying injury. 

 

On 7 May 08, the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) overruled the 
FPEB decision, stating “We have reviewed the MEB on subject 
member and have determined that he (applicant) is not entitled to 
disability processing. The diagnosis listed on AF Form 618, Medical Board Report, did not occur in a military status and is 


unrelated to a previous injury suffered in the line of duty in 
2001, for which member fully recovered and was returned to duty 
following occupational therapy.” Reliance by the AFRC on the MEB 
Narrative Summary is wholly misplaced, because the Narrative 
Summary was in error. The FPEB recognized the error in the 
Narrative Summary and concluded the underlying injury was never 
repaired or completely healed. 

 

The fact the wrist never healed, nor was it repaired, shows the 
FPEB got it right, and so did the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA). The applicant is rated at 40 percent (service connected) 
disability for the fused wrist by the DVA. 

 

The counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant underwent MEB processing on 29 Nov 07. According 
to the MEB Narrative Summary, on 16 Sep 07, he suffered a LOD 
injury to his right wrist in Jun 01, while deployed to Germany, 
and underwent an arthroscopic repair and debridement of the 
injury in Jan 02. He was released to full duty after 
occupational therapy in Jul 02. He reinjured the wrist at his 
civilian job in Mar 05. He underwent a right lunotriquetal 
fusion on 6 Feb 06. He underwent a full right wrist fusion on 25 
Apr 07. Post-operation follow-up on 2 Aug 07, reported the right 
wrist fusion was doing well objectively, and that he was ready to 
progress his work status. The MEB concluded the overall long 
term prognosis for near normal function remained good; however, 
suggested to expect further complaints of injury and disability 
should the member be returned to duty status. The MEB concluded 
the member was not qualified for worldwide duty. If retained in 
the Reserve, restrict to home station, and administrative duties 
only, pending release to full duty from the surgeon. 

 

On 8 Feb 08, the applicant’s case was considered by the IPEB. 
The IPEB concluded his medical condition (right wrist fusion 
status post lunotriquetal fusion) to be EPTS and not permanently 
aggravated by military service. The Board further noted that 
after the applicant’s injury in Germany, he was returned to full 
duty after receiving occupational therapy, and that his recent 
injury happened during civilian employment, and therefore was 
EPTS. The IPEB found the applicant unfit and recommended 
discharge under provisions other than Chapter 61, Title 10, 
United States Code (USC). 

 

On 28 Mar 08, the applicant met an FPEB. The FPEB reversed the 
decision of the IPEB and found his condition (right wrist fusion 
status post lunotriquetal fusion) an unfitting condition, and 
that the disability was incurred in the line of duty, and awarded 
the applicant a 40 percent disability rating, with a 
recommendation for permanent retirement. The FPEB stated the 
fusion was the result of worsening symptoms. 


 

On 7 May 08, AFRC/SGPA overruled the FPEB decision stating the 
diagnosis listed on AF Form 618, Medical Board Report did not 
occur in a military status, and is unrelated to a previous injury 
suffered in the line of duty in 2001, for which member fully 
recovered and was returned to duty following occupational 
therapy. The second injury to the member’s wrist occurred in 
civilian status in 2005, and is therefore not service connected. 

 

On 1 Sep 08, the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve 
Section awaiting pay at age 60. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
included in the advisories prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

AFRC/SGP deferred making a recommendation on the applicant’s 
request to the appropriate authority. AFRC states that they do 
not have PEB authority, and did not overrule the findings of the 
FPEB. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) 
directed the fitness only consideration and returned the package 
without action to HQ AFPC/SGP. 

 

The complete SGP evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFRC/A1K concurs with SGP and defers to the AFBCMR on the 
member’s request for relief of back retirement pay associated 
with his claim. 

 

The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

Counsel indicates there was nothing new offered in the advisory 
opinions and that he and his client reassert their prior 
position. 

 

The counsel’s submission is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The applicant 
sustained an LOD wrist injury while deployed to Germany in 2001. 
Arthroscopic evaluation demonstrated the presence of instability 
of the lunotriquestrial ligament. Surgical treatment was 
deferred and occupational therapy pursued instead. The applicant 
reportedly re-injured himself in Mar 05 while in performance of 
his civilian occupation (US Postal Service). There are no 


details available as to the nature or extent of the applicant’s 
re-injury. Whatever its significance, it resulted in a decision 
to proceed with surgical fusion of the applicant’s right wrist; a 
recommendation which was previously avoided by the applicant and 
his surgeon, but one which resulted in an MEB and referral to a 
PEB. While it may be obvious that something happened on the 
applicant’s civilian job that either worsened or exacerbated the 
applicant’s wrist ailment, the Medical Consultant cannot ignore 
the fact there was evidence of underlying ligamentous instability 
prior to the so-called re-injury. However, it was the acute 
worsening of his condition, and not the previous level of 
ligament instability that was the cause for career termination. 
For the military Reservist (serving in a period of 30 days or 
less), a disqualifying medical condition must be found service 
incurred or aggravated in order to qualify for disability 
processing. Consequently, the applicant was relieved from his 
assignment and was assigned to the Retired Reserve Section, with 
placement on the Reserve Retired List, and entitlement to an 
Armed Forces identification card. Regarding the disability 
ratings awarded to the applicant, the DVA acted within its 
authority, under Title 38, USC, to rate any aspect of the 
applicant’s medical condition that was determined to be service 
connected, e.g., 2001 injury; but also retained the authority to 
assign a higher disability rating, based upon any changes 
(worsening or improvement) in the condition that may occur over 
time. Thus, while the BCMR Medical Consultant empathizes with 
the applicant’s situation, the applicant has not met his burden 
of proof that an error or injustice has occurred in his case. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit 
F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Before his release from active duty in Jun 08, a hand surgeon 
specialist had told him that his right wrist was about 80 percent 
and it was possible the lunotriquestral instabililty injury would 
tear fully since he only had three months of physical therapy. 
During the three years in the Reserves, he was promoted to 
supervisor, and assured he would not participate in any lifting. 
While working at his civilian employment and lifting from his 
cart to his vehicle, the injury popped fully. 

 

The MEB report indicates he had arthroscopic repair in Jan 02, 
this statement is wrong, he only had a procedure to find out what 
type of injury occurred, no surgery was done. The BCMR Medical 
Consultant concluded his condition existed prior to military 
service (nonservice-incurred or aggravated) and recommended 
discharge without compensation under provisions other than 
Chapter 61, Title 10 United States Code. The FPEB found his 
medical condition was service connected and recommended permanent 
retirement with a 40 percent disability rating. Under the 
direction of the Special Assistant to the Director, Secretary of 
the Air Force Personnel Council, he was removed from the MDES and 


processed as a fitness determination only case. Had the Air 
Force taken care of this back in 2002, he would (sic) have been 
in this mess to begin with. Now, after two operations on his 
right wrist, he is not getting any better. His physician had 
told him that his injury could tear again, and it did, three 
years later. His condition did not exist prior to military 
service. His injury occurred on active duty in 2001, and again 
in 2005, how can this injury be prior to military service? 

 

There was no injury to his wrist in Mar 05. The second injury 
occurred in Jul 05 at his civilian employment. Once again, his 
physician told him the ligament would tear at anytime, and it 
did. The Consultant states it is obvious something happened to 
his wrist by the worsened or exacerbated wrist aliment. Yes, his 
wrist was injured due to lifting a heavy tray of mail, and it is 
obvious the ligament was not fully healed, which caused the 
ligament to tear fully. 

 

Since he only had three months of physical therapy to strengthen 
the muscle around the ligament. He and his physician knew the 
injury would tear in the future. This is why military Reservists 
get screwed in the end when they get off orders. This is a prior 
military injury and should be treated as a permanent military 
injury. The Consultant indicates this injury was the acute 
worsening of his condition, and not the previous level of 
ligament instability. He knew from delivering mail everyday that 
in the summer the volume of mail would get heavier and this is 
what caused the ligament to tear. 

 

He had no choice but to follow his physician’s orders. He feels 
the military disability board is not taking care of veterans who 
get injured in the line of duty, such as himself. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After careful 
review of this application, we agree with the recommendation of 
the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the rationale expressed as 
the basis for our decision the applicant has not been the victim 
of either an error or injustice. Evidence has not been provided 
which would lead us to believe the applicant was treated 
unfairly, or that his release from his Reserve assignment due to 
unfitness and transfer to the Retired Reserve Section was 
inappropriate. Although the applicant is correct in that his MEB 
Narrative Summary incorrectly stated that he underwent 
arthroscopic repair, rather than arthroscopic examination, this 


had no bearing on the outcome of the disposition of his case, as 
his injury during a period of civilian employment was the basis 
for terminating his career. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 Docket Number 
BC-2009-00064 in Executive Session on 27 Aug 09, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2009-00064 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Dec 08, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/SGP, dated 10 Mar 09. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 16 Mar 09. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 09. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, dated 10 Apr 09. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 22 Jun 09. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jul 09. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Aug 09. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair