RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01911 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. She be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) 
and receive retroactive compensation; or as an alternative if she 
is found fit for duty, return her to duty with all pay and 
benefits associated. 

 

2. Per the governing regulations, she receive the Certificate of 
Retirement, United States Flag, Air Force Lapel Button, the 
Certificate of Appreciation for Service in the Armed Forces of 
the United States, and if appropriate, the Presidential Letter of 
Appreciation. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She should have been placed on the TDRL because she was found 
unfit, met the criteria for retirement and her condition may be 
permanent, but was not stable. Her AF IMT 356, Findings and 
Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, 
clearly reflects the “degree of impairment” marked as “may be 
permanent” as opposed to “is permanent”. Her condition was rated 
as not being stable and the decision of the Formal Physical 
Evaluation Board (FPEB) was based on her condition the day the 
board convened; she was experiencing muscle spasms. 

 

After reviewing her documents, she discovered the AF Form 356 did 
not match the rule and column of the governing regulation. The 
regulation notes, “When the rule and column are blank, the item 
on the AF Form 356 may be “Yes,” or “No,” or “NA.” However, 
where the rule and column are filled in the rule must match with 
the items on the AF Form 356.” However, her AF Form 356 clearly 
shows that the rules do not match. Therefore, she should have 
been put on the TDRL and been able to prove that she was fit to 
return to duty. 

 

The Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO) discouraged 
her to submit any support letters stating, “that if I did the 
Board would most likely discharge me without any compensation, 
and this discouraged me from doing so and I did what the PEBLO 
asked of me so that this would not happen.” 

 


Had she been placed on the TDRL, she could have been taking off 
the TDRL and returned to active duty a couple of years ago or 
later placed on the PDRL if still deemed as “unfit”. 

 

She was never asked if she wanted a retirement ceremony and would 
like to be receive all appropriate documents as listed above. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides excerpts from 
her medical and personnel records. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant met an Information Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) 
for spondylosis and degenerative disc disease, cervical spine 
with herniated discs. The IPEB recommended discharge with 
severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating. The applicant 
did not agree with the IPEB findings and appealed to the FPEB. 
On 31 Jan 05, the FPEB reviewed her case and agreed with the 
IPEB, and recommended permanent retirement with a 30 percent 
disability rating. The applicant concurred with the FPEB 
findings on 1 Feb 05. She served 5 years, 2 months, and 20 days 
on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. Through the applicant’s own 
testimony, her condition had progressively gotten worse since the 
5 years that elapsed and since her original injury in June 2000 
occurred. Although her AF Form 356, Block 10E, was checked as 
“may be” permanent versus “is” permanent, the error made was an 
administrative error in the checking of the wrong box rather than 
in the recommendation of permanent retirement. While the 
severity of the symptoms related to such conditions may be 
intermittent and vary over time, the underlying condition is not 
reversible and usually becomes progressively worse. DPSD states 
that given this diagnosis and history, even if she had not been 
having neck spasms the day of her formal hearing, the board would 
have been hard pressed to recommend anything short of permanent 
retirement. 

 

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


The applicant responded by stating, “her record does not clearly 
reflect that she has significant and progressively worsening 
degenerative disc disease at the time of the original boards.” 
The records states that she had progressively worsening muscle 
spasms and neck pain; there is clearly a difference between the 
two statements. 

 

According to the medical documentation, it was the spasms that 
she was being seen for and not the actual discs. She finds the 
statement, “And while the severity of the symptoms related to 
such conditions may be intermittent and vary over time, the 
underlying condition is not reversible and almost always becomes 
progressively worse,” contradicting. She asks, “Does not 
intermittent mean ‘occurring in irregular intervals; not steady,’ 
meaning that my condition is ‘not stable?’ Also, is it medically 
proven that degenerative disc disease is permanent and not 
reversible?” She believes this is merely an opinion because the 
medical personnel informed her that degenerative disc disease is 
not permanent and can be reversed. 

 

Disc degeneration is not a disease and is a natural part of 
aging; over time, all people will exhibit changes in their discs 
consistent with a greater or lesser degree of degeneration. 
Unfortunately, her developed after sustaining an injury from a 
motor vehicle accident. Her MRI report does not show any 
significant changes in her condition from 2000 to present. 

 

Regardless of the administrative error that was pointed out by 
AFPC/DPSD, she has proven her point and believes if she had 
argued this matter sooner she may have had a better chance of 
returning to active duty. 

 

As for the statement, “Applicant’s inability to train in chemical 
gear along with on-going narcotics use makes her undeployable,” 
it is interesting since there are so many active duty members 
that are undeployable and yet are still on active duty; some of 
their conditions are worse than her medical condition. Her 
records clearly reflect that she was worldwide qualified until 
she arrived in Turkey. However, her primary care manager (PCM) 
did not want to deal with her situation and recommended she be 
evaluated by the Disability Evaluation System (DES). 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant states that the applicant is correct in her assertion 
that when a PEB believes a medical condition “may be permanent,” 
then temporary retirement (TDRL) under 10 U.S.C., Section 1202, 
applies, keeping in mind that there must be a minimum rating of 
30 percent. The applicant also correctly illustrated the 
requirements for TDRL placement; however, the Medical Consultant 
concedes that the documentary “rule” for TDRL placement is 
inconsistent with the final decision of Permanent Retirement, but 
opines the FPEB likely acknowledged that in clinical practice 
there is no way to predict with any degree of certainty the 
lifelong natural progression of the applicant’s cervical 
degenerative disc over time or her myofascial pain (particularly 
in the context of the date of the injury and its persistence over 
a 4-year period without a durable resolution). Therefore, her 
current implicit argument that her medical condition was unstable 
and she should have been placed on the TDRL does not invalidate 
the clinical judgment and rationale exercised by the FPEB at the 
“snap shot” time of her release from active duty. 

 

Although the law allows for a maximum period of 5 years in TDRL 
status, with 18-month interval re-evaluations, there is no 
statutory requirement for a PEB to place or retain an individual 
on the TDRL unless, in the judgment of the rating board, the 
condition rates at least a 30 percent and the condition is 
unstable. The Medical Consultant notes the applicant’s condition 
was first rated at 20 percent that would not have rendered her 
retirement eligible, neither temporarily or permanently; however, 
she was successful in convincing the FPEB to increase her rating 
to 30 percent at a time when the stability of her condition was 
not brought into question. The applicant now argues that the 
errant mark on her AF Form 356 is the reason she should have been 
placed on the TDRL; with the assumption that her condition would 
have resolved while on the TDRL resulting in her ultimate removal 
from the TDRL and the opportunity to resume her military career. 
However, the Medical Consultant opines that the greater 
administrative error was failing to put the check mark in the “is 
permanent” block to match the decision to retire her permanently, 
and not failing to enter her on the TDRL. 

 

The Medical Consultant opines that to return the applicant to 
duty poses an unreasonable uncertainty for a return on investment 
for the Air Force; notwithstanding the multi-level cervical disc 
bulges, which have been disassociated with her pervious bouts of 
neck pain. Furthermore, taking away her retirement benefit poses 
an unreasonable risk for a greater long-term detriment to her if 
returned to duty and later separated with severance pay if for 
some reason she is again medically disqualified and unable to 
achieve a 20-year retirement; or if placed on the TDRL, then 


discharged with severance pay for a condition that improved, but 
was still found unfitting. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation 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 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. 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 the BCMR 
Medical Consultant and adopt their 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-2011-01911 in Executive Session on 29 Nov 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2011-
01911 was considered: 


 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, APFC/DPSD, dated 20 Jun 11. 

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

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair