RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01315 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He receive a medical retirement from the Air Force Reserve rather 
than being discharged. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The discharge officer did not inform him that he qualified for a 
medical retirement and he feels it to be an injustice. His 
service-connected disability was aggravated and became worse 
while serving in the Reserves. He is 70 percent disabled and his 
records are proof that he qualifies for a medical retirement. 

 

A retired reservist informed him in February 2011 that he should 
have been medically retired; however, he did not realize he could 
apply or that such procedures existed. He had no choice but to 
be placed on the Inactive Reserve Status list due to his 
inability to perform his official duties. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, excerpts from his personnel and medical records, a copy of 
his congressional inquiry package, and a copy of his Statement of 
Case from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) office. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 23 Jun 86. 
He was transferred to the Air Force Reserve after being 
discharged on 22 Jun 90. His Reserve Order reflects he 
voluntarily requested reassignment to the Air Force Reserve 
Personnel Center (ARPC) Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) list due to 
a temporary medical condition. The applicant was honorably 
discharged from ARPC on 1 Jul 02. 

 


Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these 
facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/SG recommends denial. Though the applicant notes Reserve 
duties aggravated his condition, there is no evidence in the 
Reserve orders or medical record that support his claim. SG 
defers to the Air Force Disability Branch regarding his request 
for medical retirement. 

 

The complete AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant notes inconsistencies with the AFRC/SG evaluation. 
He explains the following key points in his rebuttal: 

 

a. He is requesting a medical retirement from the Air 
Force Reserve not the Air Force. 


 

b. He was told that if he received a VA disability rating 
of 40 percent or greater he could not continue to serve in the 
Reserves, until his condition improved. Had he known that he 
could have stayed in an active status in the Reserve, he would 
have remained an active reservist. However, the fact is that he 
was forced to be placed in the Inactive Reserve due to 
complications with his service connected lower back disability 
that was caused in part by his duties as an Aircraft Fuel Systems 
Technician. The applicant points out that SG accurately states, 
“… according to documentation from the Department of Veterans 
Affairs that the associated disability originated from his 
service while on active duty and is service connected.” 


 

c. He submits documentation from his medical records to 
support his claim that his Reserve duties aggravated his injury. 


 

d. The SG evaluation states that there was no case file to 
substantiate his assertion that he was not briefed prior to his 
(assumed) voluntary separation from the active Reserve in 1997. 
However, he notes that upon separation from any branch of the 
military, a documented separation briefing must be performed and 
kept on file. The fact that his Reserve Order states that he was 
being reassigned because of a medical condition is substantial 
evidence to support his claim. The discharge officer did not 



adhere to the governing DoD instructions during his separation, 
which constitutes a grave error and injustice. 


 

e. He has only been separated from the Reserve since 2002, 
not over 14 years ago as stated in the AFRC/SG evaluation. 


 

f. He submits that his Reserve and DVA medical records 
clearly document that his condition got worse while serving in 
the AFR. 


 

g. Time should not be a factor, when an error and an 
injustice have occurred. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. It can only be 
speculated, at best, that the applicant may have been unable to 
perform all of the duties of his career field at the time, but 
that either the condition was not expected to be permanent or did 
not warrant (or the applicant did not desire) a separation action 
through the Disability Evaluation System (DES); either as a 
disqualifying non-duty related condition or as a compensable 
medical condition under the governing regulation. In this case, 
there are no line of duty documents, Reserve service treatment 
records, nor duty-limiting documents to support his claims which 
determine his fitness for duty or his eligibility for 
compensation via the DES if found unfit. 

 

The Medical Consultant is familiar with policies outlined in the 
governing regulations, which may help explain the heretofore-
undisclosed mysteries in the applicant’s case. Based upon the 
evidence submitted, it is likely that ARPC did not find the 
applicant’s back ailment duty-related; this should have otherwise 
generated a Duty-Limiting Condition notification and a Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB) with a possible separation. Even if non-
duty related, the applicant would have had the opportunity to 
appeal his fitness for duty to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). 
Instead, the applicant may have chose (or allegedly “was forced” 
or “had no choice” but) to enter into the Non-participating Non-
obligated Ready Personnel Section (NNRPS). 

 

It is noted the applicant submitted medical progress notes from 
1989 and 1990 that were not the cause for his separation nor 
precluded his ultimate acceptance for entry into Reserve status. 
The Annual Medical assessment of August 1991 shows he certified, 
to the best of his knowledge, that he had no medical defect, 
disease, or disability that would disqualify him for full 
military duty. However, according to the subsequent annual 


medical assessments, it becomes evident that he had been 
receiving compensation, likely from the DVA, during this 
subsequent period. 

 

In 1996, the applicant submitted an appeal for an increase in his 
disability rating (from 20 percent to 40 percent), following 
which he reportedly was “voluntarily” transferred to NNRRS. 

 

The Medical Consultant opines that sufficient evidence has not 
been provided of a nexus between the applicant’s two episodes of 
care for back pain during his period of active service and his 
subsequent reason for transfer to the NNRPS. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant responded by submitting several letters of 
rebuttal. His response to the BCMR Medical Consultant’s 
evaluation reiterates his originals contentions, specifically 
noting that it is mandatory that a separation briefing be 
conducted; this usually starts by completing DD Form 2648, Pre-
separation Counseling Checklist. Because of this not happening, 
he did not know his rights. 

 

According to the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities (VASRD), a service-connected disability rating over 
30 percent automatically disqualifies you for service in the 
United States Reserves/Air National Guard. There was no mention 
to this fact when he was forced to retire [sic] because of these 
guidelines. This is where the injustice lies, if the AFR had 
followed proper protocol, this fact would have been documented. 

 

His injury was aggravated when he was employed by the AFR. It 
was impossible for another job-related factor to contribute to 
the aggravation of his lower back condition. Furthermore, two 
main critical concerns have been satisfied; 1) the disability 
rating is beyond the 30 percent, and 2) the fact that he could no 
longer perform his duties due to the aggravation of his 
condition. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


 

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 to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. The applicant 
is requesting he receive a medical retirement from the Air Force 
Reserve rather than being discharged. His assertions that he was 
not informed that he qualified for a medical retirement and that 
his service-connected disability was aggravated and became worse 
while serving in the Air Force Reserve was noted. However, other 
than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence showing his 
substantial rights were violated, his case was not properly 
processed, or he was miscounseled in any way. The applicant’s 
assertions concerning the requested relief have been thoroughly 
addressed in the opinions prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility and by the BCMR Medical Consultant and the 
applicant has provided no evidence which, in our opinion, 
successfully refutes their assessments of his case. Therefore, 
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis in 
which to favorably consider his request. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-01315 in Executive Session on 24 Jan 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2011-
01315was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/SG, dated 27 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 27 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, undated. 

 Exhibit H. Letters, Applicant, dated 19 Oct 11, 4 Nov 11, and 

 11 Nov 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair