RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03304 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

She receive disability compensation for her service connected 
disability. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She should have been discharged via a Physical Evaluation Board 
(PEB) and should have received disability compensation given the 
severity of her medical conditions. Her discharge was 
determined medically disqualified by the Air National Guard 
(ANG) Surgeon General’s office. 

 

She was denied service connection for a cervical disk injury and 
emotional stress. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of 
medical evaluations and reports, a certified mail receipt to the 
165th ANG, his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Statement of 
Case, and a Notice of Disagreement to the DVA. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Based on the applicant’s submission and the available records, 
she was released from the ANG on 15 Feb 2001 due to a medical 
disqualification. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force at Exhibits C and H. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/SGPF is unable to make a recommendation concerning the 
applicant’s request to undergo Disability Evaluation System 
(DES) processing. NGB/SGPF recommends no action be taken unless 


the applicant can provide documentation clearly showing her 
medical conditions were deemed service connected and severe 
enough to warrant DES processing. 

 

SGPF states the applicant has failed to provide the required 
documentation demonstrating her medical conditions were service 
connected. In order to establish service connection for a 
medical condition, military orders would need to be provided 
that coincide with medical documentation outlining the extent 
and severity of her medical conditions. In addition, NGB/SG and 
NGB/A1 have no record of a line of duty determination, request 
for disability consideration, or any other entitlement request 
submitted on her behalf. 

 

The complete SGPF evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

NGB/A1PS concurs with the SGPF’s advisory and therefore 
recommends no action be taken unless the applicant can provide 
documentation showing her medical conditions were deemed service 
connected and severe enough to warrant DES processing 

 

The complete A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states she respects the advisory opinions, 
however, she has no further documentation and stressed her 
concerns to SGPF that she has no other source to obtain 
evidence. In an email to SGPF, she states she was assigned to 
the 165th Georgia ANG Unit in Logistics Traffic Management. She 
did not miss a drill duty in the entire three years of her term. 
On the day of her accident she worked with another airman and 
asserts they both completed an order from the supply unit to 
ship a container weighing 118 pounds. They both lifted the 
container onto a dolly. While lifting the container from 
underneath she injured her cervical disk. 

 

At the time of her injury, she was not aware of the seriousness 
and continued to work her regular drill weekends as well as her 
technician civil service job until the pain became severe. She 
went to her private doctor and not the military doctors. Her 
doctor scheduled her for an X-ray and an MRI found her C3, and 
C4 disks were injured. Since she was a new airman, she was not 
aware of the procedures concerning military orders or 
undergoing DES processing. She did not receive any instructions 
or assistance. Her military records were with the 156th (sic) 
ANG and may be destroyed by now. 

 

She provided the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) medical 
documents and X-rays. Before she submitted a claim with the 
DVA, the ANG directed her to apply for workman’s compensation 
benefits since she was also a civil service employee. Her 


request was denied because her injury occurred during drill 
weekend duty. 

 

She is confused because her case is subject to both civil 
service and military rules. She did not know who to contact for 
correct procedures concerning her injury. She is not sure what 
other evidence is required to support her case. She has 
forwarded all the medical documents to the DVA. She has written 
letters to the 165th ANG requesting a copy of the form she used 
to ship the container that caused her injury. The form confirms 
the date, time, weight, and other pertinent information which 
would help support her claim. SMSgt H has all the documents 
from her military records. 

 

Her medical condition is service connected and severe enough 
because the 165th released her. She has not received any support 
from them and asked SGPF to help her and grant DES processing. 

 

She understands how paperwork can sometimes be mishandled and 
errors occur. If her request is denied, she will accept the 
decision with honor. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant regrettably recommends denial of the 
applicant's petition to change the record to reflect she was 
medically discharged and offered disability compensation via a 
PEB. 

 

The Medical Consultant states he is aware that musculoskeletal 
injuries, particularly muscular strains, may not maximally 
manifest clinically until one or more days after the initial 
insult. In the case under review, the applicant alleges she 
injured herself during a drill weekend in Feb 2000. One such 
recollection places the sentinel occurrence on or about 4 Feb 
2000 and in another report, occurring on or about 12 Feb 2000. 
The fact the applicant obtained an MRI scan in the month (March 
2000) following the month of her military drill is an indication 
that she may have indeed been experiencing cervical pain. 
However, this report is insufficient to establish a causal 
relationship with military service; absent evidence of an in a 
line of duty determination, or as a minimum, evidence of timely 
evaluation or reporting of the injury to military officials. 
The medical assessment of 17 Feb 2000 would be helpful in this 
instance, but is also not supplied. Although the applicant 
appears to have been involved in physical therapy in Apr 2000, 
two months following the alleged injury, this is again 
insufficient to establish a connection with military service. 
Moreover, the applicant has not supplied the medical 
disqualification notice for an assessment of the effective date 


of her disqualification nor her duty status at the time her 
condition was deemed disqualifying. It should be noted the 
applicant's radiographic studies (Mar 2000 and Oct 2000) failed, 
at the time, to demonstrate a surgically correctable or other 
significant permanent anatomic defect that can be attributed to 
the applicant's reported injury of Feb 2000. Finally, it 
remains possible that even if the applicant sustained an injury 
during a drill weekend, that it only became disqualifying during 
a subsequent period in which she was not performing duty and, 
thus, may have been considered non-duty related, unless shown to 
have been permanently aggravated by her military service. A 
line of duty determination, adequate medical documentation, and 
the applicant's duty status when she became disqualified are 
essential in making the distinctions. The Medical Consultant 
empathizes with the applicant's dilemma, but opines she has not 
met the burden of proof that warrants the desired change of the 
record. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant located a letter from ANG/SGPS, dated 18 Jan 2001, 
notifying her she was certified “Medically Disqualified for 
Worldwide Duty” and a copy of AF Form 422, Physical Profile 
Serial Report, dated 25 Jan 2001, stating she was medically 
disqualified for worldwide duty. She should have been allowed 
PEB processing. It appears the advisory opinions are following 
the same steps by not allowing her PEB processing, in regards to 
her injury. It is obvious she should have been compensated for 
her medical condition since her condition does not allow her to 
serve in the military. She questions why the National Guard 
would medically disqualify her and not grant her VA compensation 
(sic). She speculates whether she should have been allowed to 
stay in the military and treated for her injury. She had three 
major surgeries at her own expense and continues to undergo pain 
management treatments. It has been over 10 years since her 
cervical disk injury and contends her condition is permanent. 
Her cervical disk injury has also caused her emotional stress. 
She was medically disqualified for worldwide duty and was 
medically discharged for the injury that occurred during her 
drill weekend in Feb 2000. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, 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 an error or injustice. The 
applicant is requesting her records be corrected in a form or 
manner that would qualify her for disability compensation. We 
note that the applicant has provided documentation reflecting she 
was medically disqualified for worldwide duty; however, the 
applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that a physical 
condition existed at the time that met the requirements for 
processing through the disability evaluation system. Therefore, 
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
offices 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. 
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting his request for disability compensation. 

 

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 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 31 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-03304: 

 


 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Aug 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/SGPF, dated 6 Jan 2012. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/AlPS, dated 17 Jan 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Feb 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Rebuttal, Applicant, 16 Mar 2012. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 27 Apr 2012. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 27 Apr 2012. 

 Exhibit H. Rebuttal, Applicant, dated 12 May 2012, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair