RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03176 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be medically retired due to his honorable service with the 
United States Navy (USN), Washington Air National Guard (ANG) 
and the United States Air Force (USAF). 

 

2. He be given a medical discharge. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. He was not afforded the opportunity to request an early 
retirement. He met a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and was 
subsequently discharged and received severance pay with a 
10 percent disability rating. 

 

2. He disagreed with the findings and recommended disposition of 
the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB). He appealed the 
findings to the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) and was 
returned to duty. 

 

3. He was notified that the Surgeon General (SG) determined he 
would be honorably discharged from the Washington ANG due to 
insufficient retainability for mobilization or ineligibility for 
worldwide deployment. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of DD 
Form 294, Application for a Review by the Physical Disability 
Board of Review (PDBR) of the Rating Awarded Accompanying a 
Medical Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States; 
VA Form 3288, Request for and Consent to Release of Information 
from Individual’s Records; AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended 
Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board (PEB); DD Form 
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; DD 
Form 214N, Report of Separation from Active Duty; NGB Form 22, Report of Separation. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served in the USN from 25 May 73 to 24 Jul 81; the 
Army National Guard (ARNG) from 6 May 98 to 5 Nov 99; the ANG 
from 6 Nov 99 to 10 Aug 05. While serving in the ANG the 
applicant was recalled to extended active duty from 18 Apr 00 to 
20 Dec 00 and 30 Jun 03 to 31 Jul 05. The applicant served 15 
years, 7 months and 24 days of total active service. 

 

On 27 May 04, a Line of Duty (LOD) determination was initiated 
because the applicant had a pulmonary embolism (blockage of the 
lungs). On 14 Jun 04, the applicant’s injury was determined to 
be in the LOD. 

 

On 18 Aug 04, the applicant’s records met a MEB for pulmonary 
embolism. The MEB recommended the applicant be referred to an 
Informal PEB. 

 

On 17 Sep 04, the IPEB found the applicant unfit and recommended 
his discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 
10 percent for deep vein thrombosis. On 27 Sep 04, he disagreed 
with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB and 
demanded a formal hearing of the case. 

 

On 15 Nov 04, the FPEB reviewed the case and recommended he be 
discharged with a combined disability rating of 10 percent for 
deep vein thrombosis causing pulmonary embolus; not 
asymptomatic, on Coumadin long term therapy. The FPEB noted: 
“The applicant testified that he has no recurrence of his 
thrombosis or his embolism. He is well-maintained on his 
Coumadin which is projected to be life-long therapy. He has had 
no complication and can perform all the duties of his Air Force 
Specialty Code (AFSC) at his current duty assignment. Although 
the member’s condition is currently stable on medication, he is 
at a higher than normal risk for sudden incapacitation and 
bleeding complications which could have a negative impact on 
mission accomplishment.” The FPEB opined the applicant’s 
condition is not compatible with the rigors of military service. 
The applicant disagreed with the findings and recommended 
disposition of the FPEB and appealed its decision to the 
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) requesting 
that he be allowed to return to duty. 

 

On 30 Dec 04, SAFPC non-concurred with the recommendations of 
the previous boards for a disposition of unfit for continued 
military service and directed the applicant be returned to duty 
for continued care and observation. The board noted: “The 
applicant is advised that he is subject to periodic 
reevaluations of his medical condition, upon which fitness for 
continued military service would again be determined.” 

 

On 7 Apr 05, the applicant’s unit was notified that although the 
IPEB and AFPC found him fit and recommended he be returned to 
duty, ANG/SGPA determined the applicant does not meet medical 


standards for worldwide duty. In addition, ANG/SGPA noted the 
applicant was disqualified for worldwide duty and may be 
eligible for Deployment Availability Code (DAC) 42, which 
denotes (MEB/PEB) position, if not, he should be 
administratively discharged. 

 

On 10 Aug 05, the applicant was discharged from the Washington 
ANG and as a member of the Reserve of the Air Force, due to 
insufficient retainability for mobilization or ineligibility for 
worldwide deployment. 

 

On 24 Apr 06, the Department of Veterans Affairs assigned the 
applicant a 10 percent disability rating for status post deep 
vein thrombosis with pulmonary embolism effective 1 Aug 05. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states the preponderance of 
evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the 
disability process. 

 

The complete DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends rescinding the 
applicant’s administrative discharge under the provision of AFI 
36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National 
Guard and Air Force Reserve Members and supplanting it with an 
order transferring the applicant to the Reserve Retired Section 
effective the date of discharge (10 Aug 05). 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant opines authorized policies and 
procedures were undertaken in the applicant’s processing through 
the Military DES; up to and including the decision by SAFPC to 
return him to duty, followed by the ANG/SG decision to release 
the applicant from military service. Even though the 
applicant’s profiles indicated he was worldwide qualified, it is 
evident that this designation was brought into question by 
senior medical officials within the applicant’s chain of 
command. Although SAFPC may have been led to believe the 
applicant occupied a non-deployable position, a document of 
record announces the applicant was “detailed” to the Western Air 
Defense Sector, while officially assigned to the “1AF for 
operational control (OPCON) and administrative control (ADCON)” 
for contingency operational purposes. The Medical Consultant 
interprets this as the holder or owner of the applicant’s 
personnel position, and to whom he was obligated for operational 
readiness purposes, most likely had him assigned against a 
deployable billet. 


 

The Medical Consultant acknowledges the perception of an 
injustice in the applicant’s case, as he was released from 
military service for the very condition he was found fit by an 
appellate review board and returned to duty. Therefore, the 
Consultant directs the Board’s attention to legislation 
10 U.S.C., Section 1214a that was likely introduced in response 
to similar administrative discharges among military Services, 
with the likely aim to curb inappropriate administrative 
discharges in lieu of a medical discharge through the military 
DES. 

 

If the applicant’s case was one in which he was found fit by the 
IPEB or FPEB (which he was not) and returned to duty, but was 
then administratively separated under authority of AFI 36-3209, 
the Medical Consultant opines SAFPC, representing the “Secretary 
of the military department concerned” could conceivably serve as 
the appropriate body for implementing an appropriate remedy 
under 10 U.S.C., Section 1214a, by directing that the 
applicant’s case be reevaluated by the PEB (with the implicit 
aim of finding the service member unfit if truly more 
appropriate). 

 

After considering all available evidence, the Medical Consultant 
found no evidence of an error in the processing of the 
applicant’s discharge under policies and procedures in existence 
at the time of the applicant’s military service; from the 
processing of his MEB, to the time he was found unfit by both 
PEBs, to the successful appellate review that returned him to 
duty, and his ultimate discharge under AFI 36-3209. Given the 
fact that he had completed 15 satisfactory years of service, the 
Medical Consultant opines the administrative discharge posed an 
injustice to the applicant. For this reason and this reason 
alone, the Medical Consultant opines consideration should be 
made for supplanting the applicant’s administrative discharge 
order with one in which authorizes his transfer to the Reserve 
Retired Section; pending verification that he had achieved at 
least 15, but less than 20, satisfactory years of service. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation, with 
attachment, is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 14 Aug 12 for review and comment within 15 days. To 
date, a response has not been received (Exhibit F). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant 
granting partial relief. In this respect, we note the applicant 
while serving in the ANG was recalled to extended active duty 
from 30 Jun 03 to 31 Jul 05 and experienced a pulmonary embolism 
which required long-term use of an anticoagulant. Given the 
fact the applicant had completed 15 satisfactory years of 
service, the Medical Consultant opines the administrative 
discharge posed an injustice to the applicant. While the 
applicant requests he be medically retired due to his honorable 
service with the USN, Washington ANG and the USAF and he be 
given a medical discharge; we concur with the alternative 
recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant that the record 
should be changed to reflect the applicant’s administrative 
discharge order was rescinded under the provisions of AFI 36-
3209 and he be transferred to the Reserve Retired Section 
effective the date of his discharge; The Air Force Reserve 
Center has verified that at the time of the applicant’s 
discharge, he had 15 years, but less than 20 satisfactory years 
of service. In view of the above and in the interest of equity 
and justice, we recommend his record be corrected to the extent 
indicated below. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his 
administrative discharge Special Order PS-128, dated 15 August 
2005, is hereby rescinded under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and 
Air Force Reserve Members and that he be transferred to the 
Retired Reserve Section effective 11 August 2005. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-03176 in Executive Session on 4 Oct 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 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 15 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 8 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, Letter, dated 14 Aug 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair