RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03472 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. She be reinstated into the Selected Reserve or Inactive Ready 
Reserve (IRR). 

 

2. She receive all back pay and allowances. 

 

3. Her twice deferred for promotion to lieutenant colonel be 
removed from her records and she receive Special Selection Board 
(SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant 
colonel. 

 

4. She be exonerated and all documents be removed from her 
unfavorable information file (UIF). 

 

5. She be considered fit for duty. 

 

6. She receive be placed on medical continuation order or receive 
incapacitation pay for the period she was unable to earn income. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. Her career, health, life, and earning capacity have been 
adversely impacted without cause by her. 

 

2. She did not commit any act to warrant or encourage the hostile 
work environment that she endured over a 5-year period. The 
Individual Mobilization Augmentee Program Management support 
office constantly harassed her; they tried to assassinate her 
character and person. In addition, the Line of Duty 
Determination to the Secretary of the Air Force, as part of her 
retirement package, for his consideration of granting her a 
medical retirement was omitted. 

 

3. After retiring on 19 Aug 09, she was advised on 30 Jun 10 that 
her records had been updated to reflect that she was twice 
deferred for promotion making her ineligible for accession to a 
participating status and established a mandatory separation date 
of 30 Jun 10 (the same date that she was notified of the twice 
deferred promotions). This was in contradiction to what she had 
been previously advised by the retirements section; she had 5-


years from her date of retirement again for accession to an 
active participating status. 

 

4. She never possessed the authority by appointment or assumption 
in a position that may have afforded her the opportunity to 
commit any of the said and/or written allegations against her. 
She did not lie or misrepresent herself or her position at any 
time 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides personal 
statements, excerpts from her medical and personnel records, e-
mail communications, and more than a few documents pertaining to 
her request. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 18 Aug 09, the applicant submitted a formal complaint to the 
56th Fighter Wing (AETC) Inspector General’s office; however, it 
was determined the complaint needed to be directed to the Air 
Force Reserve Command’s IG office. 

 

The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) approved the applicant’s 
retirement on 19 Aug 09. 

 

On 3 Sep 09, the AFRC/IG office determined that the issues were 
more appropriate for command channels. AFRC/IG directed the 
RMG/CC to conduct a review and respond directly to the 
complainant with courtesy copy to their office. 

 

In a letter that is addressed to the AFRC/IGQ, but appears to be 
directed to the applicant, the RMG/CC examined the applicant’s 
complaints to the IG and provided the following: 

 

 a. On 6 Aug 09, the applicant’s Line of Duty Determination 
(LOD) was determined to be in the line of duty (ILOD). 

 

 b. On 13 Aug 09, AFRC/SG informed the applicant’s Program 
Manager’s (PM) office (Det 11) that the Military Treatment 
Facility (MTF) which initiated the LOD could not also initiate a 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) because an MEB has to be at a 
regular Air Force MTF. Therefore, on 17 Aug 09, her medical 
records were sent to the Base Individual Augmentee Administrator 
(BIMAA) at the Pentagon in order for the clinic to initiate the 
MEB. On 19 Aug 09, the clinic informed the BIMAA they could not 
initiate MEBs. The applicant’s records were taken to the Andrews 
AFB MTF on 20 Aug 09, but they were unable to assist because she 
did not live in the District of Columbia (DC) area. The Det 11 
Superintendent was in contact with the Lackland AFB MTF about 


initiating the MEB when the SECAF approved the applicant’s 
retirement. 

 

 c. The purpose of an MEB is to determine fitness for continued 
duty. Since the applicant’s retirement was under review and was 
ultimately approved, no MEB was required. Her completed LOD 
ensured she was entitled to care for her condition. The 
discharge action against her would have proceeded and the fitness 
for duty was no longer a consideration. 

 

 d. On 20 Jul 09, Det 11 Superintendent advised the applicant of 
the steps to take in order to request incapacitation pay. On 
10 Aug 09, the applicant submitted an incomplete package, which 
was returned. At that time, the applicant asked about medical 
continuation orders. On 17 Aug 09, the Superintendent tried to 
reach the applicant by phone; however, the phone number was no 
longer valid. The Superintendent e-mailed the applicant and 
again informed her of the steps required to initiate 
incapacitation pay. On 1 Sep 09, the applicant submitted another 
incomplete incapacitation pay package. On 2 Sep 09, the 
applicant submitted the complete package which was being 
processed for the inclusive dates of 6-18 Aug 09. In addition, 
AFRC/SG and Det 11 discussed the applicant’s case and AFRC/SG 
agreed to review her case to determine whether she should have 
been placed on medical hold to undergo an MEB. However, AFRC/SGP 
reviewed her current medical status and found she did not 
overcome the presumption of fitness IAW the governing regulations 
and they did not recommend placing her on medical hold. It was 
recommended she be allowed to retire on her established 
retirement date of 19 Aug 09. 

 

 e. On 14 Sep 09, AFRC/A1 notified the RMG that since the 
applicant is currently retired that she would need to file for 
incapacitation pay with the AFBCMR. 

 

 f. The applicant’s third complaint concerned receiving pay for 
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) attendance. Det 11 erred by 
allowing her to attend the TAP; however, they have agreed to 
forward the paperwork that will allow her to be paid. 

 

Documentation provided by the applicant reflects she received: 

 

 a. A Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 12 Jul 05 for attempting to 
misuse Military Personnel Appropriation (MPA) funds allocated to 
AF/XO and misrepresented mission requirements in the development 
of official MPA orders for not only herself, but other personnel 
within AF/XO and other Air Staff organizations. 

 

 b. A LOR on 31 May 06 for being derelict in two of her duties: 
1) she did not make herself available to receive an order from 
Lt Col B while in Reserve status between on or about 28 Mar 05 
and on or about 4 May 05; and 2) she neglected to notify the 
finance office that she was receiving pay and allowances to which 


she was no longer entitled. The applicant’s two responses to theLORs are attached (see Exhibit A, Tab LOR Response (1stand 2nd)).

The applicant processed an AF IMT 1288, Application for Ready 
Reserve Assignment, through her supervisor instead of through herPM office for release. The 113thWing processed her accession 
with the DC Air National Guard. However, the ANG terminated her 
appointment once they realized the error. Twoweeks later, the 
applicant processed another AF IMT 1288 through her assigned 
unit. 11 WG/CV indorsed the AF IMT 1288 and assigned her to 
HAF/XPX on 1 Mar 05 to be effective on 14 Mar 05.

A 29 Jun 09 LOD determined the applicant’s medical condition was 
in the line of duty (ILOD).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

RMG/CC recommends denial. The details of the case indicate that 
the applicant received a LOR/UIF on 19 Dec 06 for misusing her 
government travel card. On 13 Apr 07, the RMG/CC recommended 
separation due to her misconduct. The applicant was scheduled tomeet an administrative discharge board on 1 May 08; however, she 
elected to retire in lieu of being discharged. The RMG/CC 
notified her that an officer grade determination (OGD) was 
required. The applicant responded to the OGD on 16 Mar 09 and on27 Mar 09, her commander recommended her to be retired in the 
grade of major (0-4).

On 11 Aug 09, the applicant was notified that she was not 
recommended for promotion and would be transferred to the retiredreserve list on her mandatory separation date due to her second 
deferral for promotion. On 15 Sep 09, the applicant’s retirementapplication was approved and she was assigned to the retired 
reserve. Her career events were effected correctly and 
judicially; therefore, they do not recommend any changes to her 
record or status.

The RMG/CC complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The commander’s recommendation “not” to change her record or 
status was based on partial facts, half truths, and without 
regard to the willful nefarious actions to destroy her career. 
The command supposes that her “career events, though 
disappointing, were effected correctly and judicially” is, in andof itself, disappointing.


Many of the offices and individuals the commander coordinated 
with for review of the details of her case were directly involved 
and responsible for some of the improprieties that happened and 
they will never admit to any wrongdoing to protect themselves. 

 

Her commander’s recommendation was based in part on an LOR/UIF 
that was later removed based on a CDI and the government travel 
card issue was not an issue as the use was authorized by the 10th 
Air Force Chief of Staff for interviewing purposes; that resulted 
in her selection for the position of executive officer. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/JA recommends awarding incapacitation pay in the amount of 
$4321.22 and denies all other requests, as the applicant's 
grievances were investigated thoroughly and either found to be 
lacking in merit, or corrective action was taken. 

 

Although she requests “exoneration, correction, promotion and 
restitution,” she does not cite any specific records in her 
personal statement that she seeks to have corrected. 

 

JA responds to each of the applicant specific requests in their 
advisory at Exhibit F (paragraph 3 and subparagraphs d through 
e). 

 

The complete AFRC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit G. 

 

AFRC/SG recommends denial, stating, in part, that although 
AFRC/CV found her condition ILOD, only a Physical Evaluation 
Board can apply Title 10 U.S.C 1207a that would result in such a 
finding, based solely on the combination of greater than 31 day 
orders and over 2920 active duty points. Without this procedural 
error her iron deficiency anemia would have been found EPTS 
(Existed Prior to Service)/LOD not applicable. This error 
allowed the applicant to be awarded medical benefits to which she 
would not have been otherwise entitled. 

 

In addition, given the fact that she was able to complete her 
duties for over 2 and one-half years without difficulty, she 
would not overcome the presumption of fitness. 

 

Given the sum total of the medical and mental health evidence 
presented, the applicant has not overcome the presumption of 
fitness for further military duties during the periods in 


question. However, SG does not believe the applicant should be 
penalized with an overturn of her ILOD. 

 

The complete AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit H. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/JA and AFRC/SG did not and are not practicing due diligence 
with regard to her career injustices that she has requested to be 
corrected. Specifically, AFRC/SG contradicts his opinion when he 
submitted that the “LOD Board on 6 August 2009…was procedurally 
in error…” Only the PEB can apply 10 U.S.C. 1207a to result in a 
finding of “In the Line of Duty” yet he did so, independently, by 
concluding “Without this procedural error, her iron deficiency 
anemia would have been found EPTS/LOD NA.” 

 

AFRC/JA provides a contradicting evaluation by stating she did 
not completely accomplish and submit incapacitation paperwork 
timely; however, she did and AFRC/JA is aware that she did 
because they reference the dates she reported not to have been 
employed which was contained in the package. She was then told 
to submit the paperwork to the AFBCMR, but recommended an amount 
they now believe that she may be entitled to which was based on 
the dates they found in the package. 

 

AFRC/JA and AFRC/SG both signed and concurred with the finding of 
ILOD. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit I. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice to warrant 
incapacitation pay for the period from 5 through 18 August 2009. 
In this respect, we agree with the Deputy Chief of Adverse 
Actions that it appears the applicant was entitled to 
incapacitation pay for the period 5-18 August 2009 due to her 
loss of earned income as a civilian because she experienced some 
medical problems which occurred while on active duty and were 
determined to be ILOD. However, she retired prior to doing so 
and as such, has had to avail herself to the correction of 


records process. Therefore, we recommend that her record be 
corrected as indicated below. 

 

4. Notwithstanding the above, we find insufficient relevant 
evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 
error or an injustice to warrant favorable consideration of the 
remainder of her requests. We have thoroughly reviewed the 
complete body of evidence provided by the applicant in support of 
her request and find it insufficient to recommend the relief she 
seeks or to determine that she has been treated any differently 
than other officers who were similarly situated. The applicant’s 
broad allegations of “willful nefarious actions to destroy her 
career” are noted; however, again, the evidence is insufficient 
to support this contention. Moreover, we note that she had an 
opportunity to contest the administrative discharge action 
initiated against her before an Administrative Discharge Board 
(ADB) and instead opted to apply for retirement in lieu of 
discharge, the day prior to the ADB convening. Based on the 
foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as 
the basis for our conclusion that, other than our recommendation 
to award incapacitation pay for the period 5 through 18 August 
2009, there exists no basis upon which to recommend favorable 
consideration of her requests. 

 

5. 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 issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she was awarded 
incapacitation pay for the period of 5 through 18 August 2009. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-03472 in Executive Session on 4 Jan and 6 Jun 12, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

 

 

 


All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2010-03472 
was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/IGQI (Withdrawn) 

 Exhibit D. Letter, RMG/CC, dated 18 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFRC/JA, undated. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, AFRC/SG, undated. 

 Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 May 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair