RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01272 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

She be entitled to medical continuation for the period 1 Oct 06 
to 2 Nov 10. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

While serving on extended active duty (EAD), she was injured and 
involuntarily released from active duty prior to her medical 
condition being resolved. 

 

She indicates that in accordance with (IAW) AFRCI 36-3004, Incapacitation Pay and Management Of Reservist Continued on 
Active Duty Orders, members on active duty orders for 31 days or 
more are not involuntarily released from their orders. If they 
incur a Line of Duty (LOD) medical condition, their orders must 
be extended until their medical condition is resolved. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; copies of documents from her servicemember medical 
records, and her EAD orders. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Based on the available evidence of record and the letter 
provided by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) office of primary 
responsibility, the applicant was recalled on EAD during the 
periods of 16 Nov 04 to 3 Feb 06 and 11 Jul 06 to 30 Sep 06. 

 

During the periods under review, the applicant injured her back 
on or about 1 Jul 05. She injured her back by falling as a 
result of her feet being caught in the perimeter rope. The 
applicant notified her immediate supervisor of the incident but 
did not seek immediate medical attention for at least one week. 
She eventually did go to the Navy Clinic and was assigned "light 
duty" for a short period of time. Her tour was extended to 


3 Feb 06. An LOD was initiated, on 11 Apr 06, for the back 
injury. 

 

On 11 Jul 06, she was again recalled to EAD. The applicant was 
released from active duty on 30 Sep 06. A second LOD was 
initiated 10 Sep 07, for her back injury and for Adjustment 
Disorder with Depressed Mood. 

 

On 6 Jan 10, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was conducted and 
the applicant was diagnosed with Lumbago, unspecified problems 
with neck, migraine with intractable migraine, adjustment 
disorder with depressed mood, and panic disorder without 
agoraphobia. The medical board report recommended that her case 
be referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). 
The IPEB diagnosed the applicant with major depression disorder 
(MDD), recurrent severe with panic disorder with agoraphobia, 
chronic low back pain, cervicalgia, and migraine headaches. 
They recommended the applicant’s name be placed on the Temporary 
Disability Retired List (TDRL), with a compensable rating of 
90 percent. 

 

The applicant was placed on the TDRL, effective 3 Nov 10, with a 
compensable disability rating of 90 percent. She was credited 
with 12 years, 5 months, and 20 days of service for pay. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/A1PS recommends denial, stating, in part, at this time 
there is no documentation provided showing the applicant was 
unable to perform ~military duties (AF form 469 - Duty Limiting 
Condition Report). They note, the AF Form 469 would have a 
comment stating the date the applicant was not eligible to 
participate in unit training assemblies (UTAs), be placed on 
orders or be counted for Status of Resources and Training 
Systems (SORTS) or it would have shown her given an assignment 
availability code (AAC) 37. Unless the member was unable to 
perform military duties, she would not qualify for return to 
active duty under Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) policy. 

 

A thorough review of the documentation provided shows the injury 
that occurred 1 Jul 05 did not limit the member's duty 
performance at that time. The documentation provided failed to 
show the member was unable to perform military duties, which 
would have been noted on the AF Form 469. 

 

The complete AFRC/A1PS evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


The applicant provides an additional statement to justify her 
claim for retroactive compensation while she was on active duty 
from 16 Nov 04 through 23 Feb 06, without a break in service. 

 

She notes, following her injury, she informed her supervisor and 
he advised her to follow up with the Navy clinic, if needed. On 
5 Jul 05, she reported to the Navy clinic with excruciating pain 
in her lower back with difficulty walking. After being seen, 
the clinic contacted her unit to request an LOD. They 
persistently continued inquiring about the LOD; however, up 
until 30 Sep 06, no LOD was initiated. 

 

She remained on active duty until 23 Feb 06, she was released 
from her orders because of funding; however, no LOD had been 
initiated. On 12 Apr 06, she was returned to active duty, she 
noted the injury and disclosed it to the medical squadron prior 
to her return. She remained on active duty orders until 
30 Sep 06. 

 

At this time, she was no longer with the security forces 
squadron and had been reassigned to communications, and then to 
the headquarters squadron; as a result of these changes in 
assignments, there was confusion as to which unit would place 
her back on active duty. 

 

For over a year she has been seeking answers about being placed 
back on active duty orders or to receive drill pay for her 
medical appointments. She was advised that she would receive 
pay from the time her orders ended to the time she would be 
reviewed by an MEB; however, when she met the MEB, they 
explained to her that they do not give compensation for back 
pay. 

 

If she was able to perform her military duty, why is it that she 
has gone four long years without performing any duty? Her 
family has suffered immensely financially, spiritually, 
emotionally, and physically; and they are still struggling to 
piece their lives back together. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

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 NGB OPR that the governing 
directives and policies in these matters require medical 


documentation to show when the applicant was unable to perform 
her military duties. While we note that the applicant contends 
that she should have been medically continued on active duty 
from 1 Oct 06 to 2 Nov 10, in accordance with the governing 
instruction, the applicant has not provided any documentation to 
reflect when she became unable to perform her military duties. 
In this respect, we note that based on the evidence provided by 
the medical providers the applicant was released with work/duty 
limitations; however, none of the documentation reflect the 
applicant was unable to perform her military duties. Therefore, 
without evidence showing when the applicant was unable to 
perform her military duties, we do not find a sufficient basis 
to substantiate that she has been the victim of an error or 
injustice. In addition, it appears that should the applicant be 
able to provide documentation to the OPR verifying when she 
became unable to perform her military duties she could be 
afforded the relief she seeks administratively. In view of the 
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
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(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2011-01272 in Executive Session on 15 November 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 22 Aug 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Sep 11. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair