RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03279 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He receive a medical retirement rather than being discharged from 
the Air National Guard. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. He injured his head while on active duty and caused damage to 
his cervical spine. In the years to follow, he began having 
major complications to include severe pain and nerve damage 
resulting from spondylosis. The spondylosis caused his discs to 
bulge and herniate to the fullest degree. He believes that since 
his injury occurred while serving on active duty that he should 
be eligible for a retirement from the Air Force. 

 

2. Based on the requirement to receive a permanent disability 
retirement, a member must be rated at 30 percent disabled or 
higher. He received a 60 percent disability rating from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and should be eligible to 
receive a permanent disability retirement from the Air Force. 
His disability has had a major adverse affect on his life and has 
greatly limited his life activities, which include the types of 
career positions he can apply for or perform. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability rating. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served in the Air National Guard in the grade of 
staff sergeant (E-5). He was released from active duty after 
completing his manpower authorization (MPA) tour on 30 Jan 02. 

 

 

According to the applicant’s medical records, on 9 Dec 93, he was 
treated for a head injury; he struck his head after raising his 
head under stairs. 


 

On 14 Dec 93, he was placed on a profile for a two-week period 
advising him against running, marching, and sports activities; he 
could walk slowly. On 4 Jan 94, his profile was renewed until 
31 Jan 94, post-concussion. 

 

On 30 Sep 04, the applicant was placed on a “4T” physical profile 
for his chronic right arm and shoulder pain for which he was 
undergoing evaluation and treatment. 

 

The applicant’s NGB Form 22, National Guard Report of Separation 
and Record of Service, reflects he had 12 years and 9 days of 
total service. Block 23, Authority and Reason, reflects 
“expiration term of service.” He received an honorable discharge 
on 27 Nov 04. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The evidence does 
not reflect the applicant had a functional impairment that could 
have or should have been the cause for a medical release from 
military service. The applicant experienced problems in the 
2003-2004 timeframe, and up to his date of release. His medical 
issues included neck and right upper extremity pain and 
apresthesias for which he was placed on a “4T” profile. The 
Medical Consultant notes the applicant may have been released 
from the ANG with a pending/unresolved profile. 

 

Particular attention was directed to a Compensation and Pension 
Examination, dated 9 Aug 07, that examined the applicant’s right 
upper extremity, which he disclosed “He developed neck, upper 
back and right arm symptoms suddenly after an injury in 2003;” he 
goes on to say, he was helping a friend in construction when he 
lifted a 50 pound bag of singles [sic] in a twisting motion. He 
had a sudden sharp pain that began in the neck and went down the 
right arm. His arm was so painful that he sought medical 
attention, which led to a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The 
applicant was told the result of MRI was that he had a herniated 
C6-7 disc with C-7 radiculopathy, which raises concern of the 
true origin of his impairment. 

 

Although the DVA granted service connection and compensation for 
the applicant’s neck and upper extremity impairments, there is no 
line of duty documents for either impairment. With regard to the 
applicant’s head injury that occurred in 1993 while on active 
duty, it is presumed to have been service incurred; however, 
there has also been no official clinical correlation of record 
between his head injury, from which he recovered, and the 
cervical herniated disc; other than his assertion on his DD Form 
149, Application for Correction of Military Record under the 
Provisions of Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 1552. There are no 
separation physical examination documents or periodic health 


assessment documents to review, not to say these documents were 
not completed; however, the evidence is not supplied upon which 
to make certain administrative and medical assessments of 
possible error or injustice. 

 

The Medical Consultant opines the applicant’s unaddressed “4T” 
profile assigned during the weeks approaching his date of 
separation constitutes an unexplained error, which the Medical 
Consultant opines that the applicant may have been eligible for a 
Medical Hold to determine if a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) 
should be convened, or as a minimum remove the “4T” profile as to 
indicate his fitness for release from military service. 

 

It is concerning that there had been no reported functional 
impairment, to include an intervening period of subsequent active 
service, that the “4T” duty restrictions were imposed only 3 
months prior to his release from service in 2004; and which did 
not require surgical treatment until nearly four years 
thereafter. 

 

The Medical Consultant addresses the applicant’s implicit desire 
to receive a medical retirement; he is advised that the Military 
Departments, operating under Title 10 USC only offers 
compensation for and when an illness or injury is the cause for 
career termination; and then only based upon the degree of 
severity or impairment at the time of final military disposition. 
However, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any 
medical condition determined service connected without regard to 
its proven or demonstrated impact upon a former service member’s 
retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for release 
from military service, or the span of time since release from 
military service. 

 

Noting the scant service documentation of the applicant’s 
cervical pain and upper extremity ailment, the only troubling 
evidence of record is the “4T” profile of September 2004. 
However, the Medical Consultant finds this document alone 
insufficient to outright recommend a retroactive medical 
retirement based upon the medical evidence during the applicant’s 
final period of service and that which has been provided post-
service. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 29 Feb 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his 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-2011-03279 in Executive Session on 17 May 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-
3279 was considered: 


 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Jul 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Feb 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair