RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02444 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her records be corrected to reflect the following: 

 

1. She was retained on active duty for medical continuation 
during the period 9 Aug 80 through 11 Dec 80 due to the injuries 
she sustained in the line of duty (LOD) on 6 Aug 80. 

 

2. The injuries she sustained in a car accident on 11 Dec 80 
were determined to be in the LOD. 

 

3. She was retained on active duty for medical continuation due 
to her 11 Dec 80 injuries until her discharge on 23 Apr 82. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. She sustained LOD injuries in a car accident on 6 Aug 80 and 
she should have been retained on active duty for medical hold. 
She was released from active duty on 8 Aug 80, only to be brought 
back to active duty on 11 Aug 80 for medical continuation. She 
has pay stubs and medical certificates that indicate she remained 
on active duty until 30 Nov 80. 

 

2. She was still on active duty on 11 Dec 80 when she was 
seriously injured in another car accident. Unfortunately, she 
was probably dropped from the rolls because she was pronounced 
dead at the scene. However, she had to have been on active duty 
that day because she was on her way to a military medical 
appointment. 

 

3. As her injuries that day were in the LOD, she should have 
been retained on active duty for medical continuation until her 
discharge on 23 Apr 82. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of her 
pay statements during the matter under review, excerpts from her 
military personnel and service medical records, selected e-mail 
correspondence, and two supporting statements. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to the applicant’s military personnel records, she 
served as a member of the Air Force Reserve during the matter 
under review. 

 

According to orders included in the applicant’s submission, she 
was ordered to active duty on 4 Aug 80 for five days for the 
purpose of attending professional military education (PME). She 
was released from active duty on 8 Aug 80. 

 

According to orders included in the applicant’s submission, she 
was ordered to active duty for Phase II of her PME on 11 Aug 80 
for four days and released from active duty on 14 Aug 80. 

 

According to the applicant’s AF Form 348, Line of Duty 
Determination, she was involved in a car accident in a parking 
lot on 6 Aug 80 and her resultant injuries were determined to be 
in the LOD on 19 Aug 80. 

 

According to a copy of an AF Form 1971, Medical Certification, 
provided by the applicant, she was certified as physically unable 
to return to duty during the period 6 Aug 80 through 31 Oct 80, 
and, thus, she was eligible for continued disability pay during 
said period. According to a second AF Form 1971, she was again 
certified as such for the month of Nov 80, but was determined to 
be fit for duty, effective 30 Nov 80. 

 

On 11 Dec 80, the applicant was involved in a second automobile 
accident where she sustained additional injuries. 

 

On 9 Apr 81, the applicant’s profile was updated to indicate she 
was temporarily not qualified for world-wide duty. 

 

On 20 Jul 81, the applicant underwent a separation physical to 
determine whether or not she was fit for duty. She was found to 
be qualified for world-wide duty. 

 

On 1 Sep 81, her profile was renewed and she was restricted from 
performing any military duty for six months. 

 

On 13 Apr 82, she was discharged from the Air Force Reserve at 
the expiration of her term of service. 

 

On 3 Jul 85, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request 
for a medical retirement in lieu of her release from active duty 
for training. In the initial case, she contended she was 
released from active duty for training while she was still 
undergoing medical treatment for injuries she received as a 
result of automobile accidents on 6 Aug 80 and 11 Dec 80. The 


Board found that said treatment did not prevent her separation 
upon completion of her enlistment on 23 Apr 82 and the evidence 
of record clearly showed that she was physically qualified for 
continued military service and that her separation was voluntary. 
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the 
applicant’s release from active duty, and the rationale of the 
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at 
Exhibit B. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/SGP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence 
indicating the applicant’s service connected acute neck injury 
rendered her unfit for military duty. Other than an active duty 
order for the period 11 through 14 Aug 80, she provides no other 
documentation to indicate she was on continuous active duty. 
Active duty status for periods of care and treatment were 
appropriate, however, continuous active duty orders would have 
been at the discretion of the applicant’s commander and there is 
no indication they were necessary. The period of 11 Dec 80 
through 23 Apr 82 is not supported by any documentation. 

 

A complete copy of the AFRC/SGP evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFRC/A1K recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not 
provided any supporting documentation that substantiates that a 
DD Form 214 should have been issued for the period of service in 
question (i.e., active duty orders reflecting that she completed 
90 continuous days or more of active duty, or reflecting that she 
has been involuntarily mobilized during the event of a national 
emergency or war under 10 USC 12301, 12302, 12304, 12306, 12307, 
or 688, regardless of the number of days served, etc.). 

 

A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant refutes the SGP assertion that she was not on 
active duty in the aftermath of her first car accident and 
provides copies of active duty orders, a police report related to 
the accident, a medical certificate, and copies of her LES’s in 
support of her claim. These documents establish that she was on 
active duty for 117 days and, as such, should make her eligible 
for a DD Form 214. Ultimately, she contends that she has proven 
that she was on active duty on 6 Aug 80 and 11 Dec 80 when she 
was injured in a second car accident and, as such, should have 
been retained on active duty until her discharge on 23 Apr 82. 
She further contends the Air Force lost track of her and she was 
never properly discharged with a separation physical. While the 
Air Force can show a physical was conducted showing she was fit 
for duty, it is not the required separation physical. The 


Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) conducted their own 
examination and awarded her a 20 percent compensable disability 
rating which is in direct conflict with the physical conducted on 
20 Jul 81. 

 

In support of her response, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement and copies of additional excerpts of her military and 
service medical records, a supporting statement, and 
documentation that appears to be related to the ambulance that 
was dispatched to the scene of the 11 Dec 80 car accident. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, including attachments, is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

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

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice with respect 
to the applicant’s claim she should have been retained on active 
duty for medical hold in the aftermath of her 6 Aug 80 car 
accident through the date of her discharge on 23 Apr 82. We note 
that while the applicant sustained injuries in the LOD on 6 Aug 
80 and was released from active duty on 8 Aug 80, it appears as 
though she returned to active duty on 11 Aug 80, where she 
remained until she was declared fit for duty and released on 30 
Nov 80. Based on the documentation provided, it appears as 
though competent authority determined she should be retained on 
active duty for the treatment of her LOD injuries until she was 
declared fit for duty and released on 30 Nov 80, as evidenced by 
the AF Form 1971, Medical Certificate, and LES’s included in her 
submission. Other than her own assertions, she has provided no 
evidence to indicate that this was an inappropriate remedy. In 
this respect, we note the comments by AFRC/SGP indicating that 
active duty orders for care and treatment of her LOD injuries 
would have been appropriate; however, continuous active duty 
orders would have been at the discretion of the commander. As 
regards to her contention that she was still on active duty on 
11 Dec 80 when she was injured in a second car accident, we do 
not find the documentation presented sufficient to convince us 
that she was on active duty on this date, and therefore we are 
not convinced that her injuries resulting from the 11 Dec 80 car 
accident should have been determined to be in the LOD. While she 
has provided a supporting statement from her attending physician 
at the time attesting to the fact that he treated her on 
26 Nov 80 and ordered her return to his clinic “about three weeks 
later,” we do not find this statement, in and of itself, 


sufficiently persuasive to convince us that she had not been 
released from active duty on 30 Nov 80. We further note the 
applicant’s assertion in response to the Air Force evaluations 
that she should not have been found fit for duty prior to her 
discharge on 23 Apr 82; however, in an earlier finding, the Board 
determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant any 
corrective action in this regard. After thoroughly reviewing the 
documentation submitted in support of her current appeal and the 
evidence of record, we do not believe she has overcome the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our previous decision. 

 

Notwithstanding the above, we do find that sufficient relevant 
evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 
error or injustice with respect to the applicant’s claim in 
rebuttal that she should have received a DD Form 214. We note 
the comments of AFRC/A1K indicating the applicant has not 
provided documentation that substantiates that a DD Form 214 
should have been issued for the requested period of service. 
However, as we have noted above, the applicant has submitted 
medical certificates and LES’s which indicate that she served on 
active duty from 11 Aug 80 through 30 Nov 80. Accordingly, we 
are convinced that a DD Form 214 should have been issued to 
document such service as it exceeded the requisite 90 consecutive 
days required for a DD Form 214 to be issued. Therefore, we 
recommend the 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 the APPLICANT be corrected to show that she was 
issued a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from 
Active Duty, for the period 14 August 80 through 30 November 80. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-02444 in Executive Session on 15 Dec 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-02444 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jun 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/SGP, dated 10 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 10 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Oct 10, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair