RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03385 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Air National Guard (ANG) retirement order be revoked and he 
be allowed to be evaluated by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) 
and Physical Evaluation Boards (PEB) due to his diagnosis of 
combat-related Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD) by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He served a harder mission than expected while being deployed for 
90 days to Afghanistan as a Chaplain Assistant. He was assigned 
to the Army and spent considerable hazardous duty outside the 
wire. Upon his return to the Continental United States (CONUS) 
and his home unit, he had great difficulties with readjustment 
and PTSD. He is still receiving care and treatment from both the 
DVA hospital and local civilian doctors. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; 
Report of Separation and Record of Service; his Reserve 
Retirement Order; Informal PEB Findings and Recommended 
Disposition; Assignment Limitation Code (ALC) memorandums; 
electronic communications; Physical Profile Serial Reports; and 
DVA Rating Decisions. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The available record shows the applicant served as a technical 
sergeant (E-6) in the Vermont Air National Guard (ANG). Although 
he was a Security Forces member, he volunteered to serve as a 
Chaplain’s Assistant for a 90-day deployment to Afghanistan in 
2004. 

 

Reserve Order EK-3256, dated 9 April 2009, indicates the 
applicant was relieved from his assignment with the Air National 


Guard and transferred to the Retired Reserve Section effective 
24 July 2009 for “15 to < 20 years satisfactory service” due to 
medical disqualification. His NGB Form 22, Report of Separation 
and Record of Service, indicates he has 20 years, 1 month, and 
23 days total service for pay with 18 years, 1 month, and 3 days 
total service for retired pay. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service records, are contained in the BCMR Medical 
Consultant’s evaluation at Exhibit B. 

 

On 6 July 2011, the applicant requested his appeal to the AFBCMR 
be administratively closed to allow him sufficient time to gather 
witness statements and supporting documentation. As requested, 
the applicant’s case was administratively closed effective 
16 August 2011. On 29/30 November 2011, the applicant requested 
to reopen his case and provided a character statement with his 
rebuttal. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical 
Consultant states that following the applicant’s deployment to 
Afghanistan, he was evaluated by a Vermont ANG physician on 
6 February 2005. The interview indicated the applicant disclosed 
he was unsure of his job situation and had difficult thoughts 
regarding his military deployment. During the interview, the 
applicant also disclosed a long history of employment 
difficulties related to being terminated from a civilian job 
after returning from active duty. The evaluating physician 
concluded the applicant met the criteria for an Axis I diagnosis 
of Major Depressive Disorder; and that he did not meet the full 
criteria for PTSD, but that he did have “PTSD symptoms of 
avoidance, numbing, and recurring thoughts.” The psychiatrist 
determined that contributory Axis IV factors consisted of “stress 
form finances, military memories, job difficulty, and a legal 
battle.” The applicant was prescribed the antidepressant Zoloft, 
50 milligrams, to be taken once per day with plans to “continue 
talk therapy and marriage counseling.” 

 

Evidence shows that the applicant was placed on an “S4” 
restricted duty profile (non-worldwide qualified) initially in 
2006, which was followed by an MEB due to Depression associated 
with PTSD, as well as Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA). However, on 
10 March 2006, the Informal PEB determined that neither the 
applicant’s Depression nor his OSA prevented him from reasonably 
performing his duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating; and, 
found him fit and recommended his return to duty. He was 
subsequently placed on an ALC “C” limiting his assignments to 
CONUS, Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. Territories. As a result, with 
the applicant’s return to duty status, his previous “S4” profile 


was changed on 5 May 2006 to an “S3” profile, with the caveat 
that he would require re-evaluation at the of expiration of the 
profile “waiver” (3 May 2008) for a reassessment of his medical 
status. The record shows that on 8 July 2008, the applicant was 
retained under ALC-C status for an additional period, with a new 
date of expiration and/or reassessment of 31 August 2009. 
Evidence of a medical reassessment is not available. 

Reserve Order EK-3256, dated 9 April 2009, announced the 
projected release of the applicant from his current assignment 
with subsequent assignment to the Retired Reserve Section and 
placement on the Reserve Retired List, effective 24 July 2009. 
The applicant’s NGB Form 22 reflects that he achieved 20 years, 
1 month, and 23 days Total Service for Pay. The authority and 
reason for release from service is recorded as “AFI 36-3209, 
paragraph 3.14, Physical Disqualification” with the Separation 
Program Designator Code of “SFJ.” 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates that is not known if the 
intent of the Informal PEB, by returning the applicant to duty, 
was to retain him only to get him to 20 years of service, as he 
appears to have requested. Other than the applicant’s self-
reported worsening of the PTSD, as noted in the DVA 
documentation, there is no objective service medical evidence 
supplied to reflect that the applicant’s PTSD worsened to the 
extent that he could no longer reasonably perform the duties of 
his office, grade, rank, or rating. If the applicant had 
underwent a repeat MEB or PEB within 12 months of a mandatory 
separation date, or expiration of term of enlistment, he would 
have been presumed fit for release from military service; and 
would have been returned to duty. 

 

To retain a member with a disqualifying medical condition, then 
to later release him or her from military service for the very 
reason of physical disqualification upon termination of a waiver, 
without giving him or her the opportunity for a re-evaluation by 
an MEB or PEB, appears to counter the purpose of the Disability 
Evaluation System (DES). At the same time, for a service member 
to enjoy retention, with a waiver (3 years) with a disqualifying 
medical condition, to the point of achieving retirement 
eligibility; then to retroactively and implicitly ask for a 
medical retirement in lieu of transfer to the Retired Reserve 
List does not appear to constitute an error or injustice. The 
Vermont ANG acted within their authority in effecting the 
applicant’s release from his assignment and his transfer to the 
Retired Reserve List. 

 

The DVA has awarded the applicant compensation for his PTSD, OSA, 
and other conditions. However, the military departments, 
operating under Title 10, United States Code (USC), only offer 
compensation for the illness or injury that is the cause for 
career termination; and then only to the degree of impairment 
present at the “snap shot” time of final military disposition. 


On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws (Title 
38, USC), the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any 
medical condition determined service-incurred or aggravated, 
without regard to its demonstrated impact upon a service member’s 
retainability, fitness to serve, or narrative reason for release 
form military service. Thus, the two laws are not meant to be 
duplicative, but assure that proper care, support, and 
compensation are provided over the lifetime of our veterans. 

 

It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that there is 
insufficient evidence to definitively determine the existence of 
a material error or injustice. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Upon his return back home from his 2004 deployment, he has been 
treated for service connected PTSD, OSA, and chronic lower back 
pain. He has been fully cooperative with the DVA and the Vermont 
ANG clinic staff providers. He was removed from duty status 
after being profiled with “S4T” and “P4T.” As a result, he was 
unable to earn any income or perform any paid military training. 
He was not able to apply for unemployment because he was not 
considered able to work or otherwise support his family. When he 
lost employment, he was not helped, but made to feel like he 
deserved the treatment he received after being terminated from 
his civilian job. Throughout all of this he had to go through an 
MEB. He was not provided any assistance, offered to be placed on 
medical hold, or told of his rights and benefits even though he 
repeatedly asked for advice and help. Even though he should have 
been placed on medical hold while still on active duty orders, 
nobody within his chain of command told him about this option or 
offered assistance. 

 

He eventually has been awarded 92 percent disability for service 
connected disabilities from the DVA and is being paid 100 percent 
disability due to his unemployability. He has complied with all 
conditions for treatment until he was denied his request to 
remain in the military. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachment, is at Exhibit 
D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


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. 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 BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice. We did not find evidence to 
support a revocation of his retirement order to undergo an 
evaluation by a MEB and PEB and our review of the evidence 
indicates his conditions were properly determined. Neither the 
applicant’s depression nor his OSA prevented him from reasonably 
performing his duties as demonstrated by his return to duty with 
limiting assignments. The fact the DVA has awarded him a 
disability rating for his PTSD, OSA and chronic lower back pain 
is not a basis to revoke his retirement. The military service 
disability system operates under Title 10 and the DVA disability 
system operates under Title 38. They are complementary systems 
not intended to be duplicative, and the fact that the DVA may 
grant certain service connected compensation ratings does not 
establish eligibility for similar actions from the Air Force. 
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-2010-03385 in Executive Session on 17 July 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03385: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 10, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 8 Jun 11. 

Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 11. 

Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jul 11, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

Panel Chair