RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03058 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and 
Fibromyalgia be reflected on the Air Force Form 356, Findings and 
Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), 
dated 1 June 2009. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Due to pressure to complete the necessary process in a timely 
manner, an incomplete work-up was accomplished at the time of her 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), which prevented adequate 
treatment of her unfitting conditions. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of the 
documents placing her on the Temporary Disability Retired List 
(TDRL), MEB Narrative, medical documentation, and Department of 
Veteran Affairs (DVA) documentation. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Air Force Reserve serving 
on extended active duty in the grade of colonel (O-6). According 
to a Duty Limiting Condition Report, dated 25 June 2008, she was 
placed in a “Not Present for Duty Status” in accordance with Air 
Force Instruction 48-123, paragraph (A)(2) and Air Force Reserve 
Command Surgeon General Policy Memorandum 06-01, due to a non-
duty related medical condition that required a Worldwide Duty 
Evaluation (WDE) and evaluation by an MEB or PEB. As a result 
the applicant was not authorized to participate for pay or points 
until final disposition of the WDE. 

 

An MEB Narrative, dated 19 February 2009, indicates the applicant 
was diagnosed with a disqualifying condition of Partial Complex 
Seizure Disorder which was found to be in the line of duty. It 
was noted that she would definitely not function well in a 
deployed environment in her current status. The MEB results 
indicated she be returned to duty with an assignment limitation 
code of “C-2” or C-3” based on her ability to function as a 


senior medical leader and perform all required duties at a 
Continental United States (CONUS) installation. 

 

An MEB Report, dated 4 March 2009, indicates the applicant was 
diagnosed with Seizure Partial Complex with Secondary 
Generalization, Vertigo, Tinnitus-Left Ear, Fatigue, Adjustment 
Disorder with Anxiety, and Osteoarthritis Localized Secondary 
Foot Left Mid-foot. The MEB referred the applicant’s case to the 
PEB. 

 

An Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) summary, dated 
1 June 2009, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with a 
compensable and ratable condition of Complex Partial Seizure 
Disorder with Secondary Generalization at a 40 percent disability 
rating; potentially unfitting but not currently compensable or 
ratable conditions of Positional Vertigo, Tinnitus, Fatigue, and 
Osteoarthritis - Left Mid Foot; and, not separately unfitting and 
not compensable or ratable condition of Adjustment Disorder with 
Anxiety. The IPEB found the applicant was unfit because of 
physical disability, that her disability was incurred in the line 
of duty, and that her condition may be permanent. The IPEB 
recommended the applicant be placed on the TDRL with a 40 percent 
disability rating. On 29 June 2009, the applicant concurred with 
the IPEB’s findings and recommended disposition. On 8 July 2009, 
the Secretary of the Air Force approved the findings and directed 
the applicant be placed on the TDRL under the provisions of Title 
10, United States Code, Section 1202. 

 

The applicant was released from active duty and placed on the 
TDRL effective 29 September 2009. She served 9 years, 7 months, 
and 19 days on active duty. 

 

A DVA Rating Decision, dated 8 June 2010, indicates the applicant 
was granted unemployability and a 90 percent disability rating 
effective 29 September 2009. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD (USAF Physical Disability Division) recommends denial. 
DPSD states the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error 
or injustice occurred during the disability process. The 
Department of Defense and the DVA disability evaluation systems 
operate under separate laws. Under Title 10, United States Code, 
PEBs must determine if a member’s condition renders them unfit 
for continued military service relating to their office, grade, 
rank, or rating. The fact that a person may have a medical 
condition does not mean that the condition is unfitting for 
continued military service. To be unfitting, the condition must 
be such that it alone precludes the member from fulfilling their 
military duties. If the board renders a finding of unfit, the 
law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature 
termination of their career. Further, it must be noted the USAF 
disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member’s 


condition at that time. It is the charge of the DVA to pick up 
where the Air Force must, by law, leave off. Under Title 38, 
United States Code, the DVA may rate any service-connected 
condition based upon future unemployability or reevaluate based 
on changes in the severity of the condition. This often results 
in different ratings by the two agencies. 

 

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 7 June 2011 for review and comment within 15 days (Exhibit D). 
As of this date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or an 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 that 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-03058 in Executive Session on 28 June 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 


 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03058: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Oct 09, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 27 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit D. Email, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 Jun 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair