RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03356 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, for the period 
Mar-Apr 2011 be changed to reflect “not fit for military duty.” 

 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The initial AF Form 469 is in error because a diagnosis of his 
injury was made with incomplete information from a civilian 
doctor, which resulted in the change of the second AF Form 469. 

 

He was prescribed Valium and Flexoril between Mar through Apr 
2011, which are not conducive to the performance of military duty. 

 

He requests this correction not only for his family’s future, but 
to file for Incapacitation Pay (INCAP) he is entitled to for the 
period of Mar to May 2011. 

 

The flight surgeon attempted to change the original AF Form 469, 
but was unsuccessful. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
military and civilian medical records, AF Form 938, Request and 
Authorization for Active Duty Training/Active Duty Tour; AFRC IMT 
348, Informal Line of Duty Determination; AF Form 1042, Medical 
Recommendation for Flying or Special Operational Duty, and AF Form 
469. 

 

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

 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Based on the applicant’s submission and the available records, he 
was on active duty 24 Sep 1997 through 12 Dec 1997, 
12 Jan 1998 through 15 Oct 1998, 11 Feb 2003 through 4 Apr 2004, 
and 20 Jul 2008 through 31 May 2010, when he was released. 

 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 


 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFRC/SG recommends denial. SG states the AF Form 469, is the 
mechanism by which the provider communicates physical and 
deployment restrictions. In this case the AF Form 469 was 
prepared by the active medical provider at flight medicine and was 
based on a documented physical examination and interview with the 
applicant. 

 

SG states that although the member was taking Motrin during the 
day and Valium at night, he was only placed on Duties Not 
Including Flying (DNIF) and given running, lifting and bending 
restrictions. Since this was a temporary condition he was not 
taken off duty, or placed on an assignment availability code 
restricting any mobility. 

 

SG states to change a previous AF Form 469 is asking to change the 
medical provider’s assessment of the situation. The notes are 
congruent with the statements on the AF Form 469, which appear to 
be correct given their assessment of the patient at that moment in 
time. 

 

The complete SG evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 

BCMR MEDICAL EXAMINER’S EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant states that although a referral physician indicated on 
15 Apr 2011, that the applicant was unable to work until after 
surgery, it remained the military clinician’s responsibility to 
manage oversight of the applicant’s care and to implement 
appropriate restrictions as necessary. 

 

The Medical Consultant states that while the applicant was 
ultimately placed on orders, presumably initiated in May 2011, the 
supplied AF Form 469 initiated in Mar 2011 clearly indicated no 
intent to designate the applicant’s medical condition as 
potentially requiring a medical evaluation board (Code 37) or that 
it was known to require treatment 31-365 days (Code 31). Both 
spaces are left blank by the provider. The Medical Consultant 
states that in retrospect one may wonder why the applicant was not 
placed on medical continuation orders during his initial phases of 
treatment and diagnostic work-up (Mar-Apr 2011), noting the 
applicant experienced pain and required a change of medications. 
Conversely, the Medical Consultant opines that with precautionary 
instructions on usage and side effects of the prescribed 
medication, the fact that the applicant was designated DNIF, and 
the intervening evidence of some improvement in pain, a health 
care provider may consider a member worldwide qualified. 

 

The Medical Consultant agrees with the SG advisory’s opinion and 
finds it inappropriate to supplant his clinical judgment with that 
of the treating physician who cared for the applicant during the 


periods of service in question. Therefore, the Medical Consultant 
states the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an error 
or injustice that warrants the desired change of record 

 

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

 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states his request was not for the purpose of 
establishing medical continuation (MEDCON) orders from Mar through 
Apr 2011, but to request a code change so he could re-apply for 
incapacitation (INCAP) pay. His package was denied due to the 
improper code that was assigned to his injury on the AF Form 469. 
A doctor attempted to correct this code, but was unable to do so, 
and as a result of this administrative issue he was left without 
income for nearly five months. 

 

He refers to the remark, “meds were making the pain livable,” he 
made on 11 Mar 2011, and states it was made in the context of 
allowing him to physically function at a minimal level. "Livable" 
also applied to the fact that with the medications he was finally 
able to obtain a quasi-decent night's sleep without waking up in 
excruciating pain several times a night. Without the medications 
he would not have been able to perform any duty, and given the 
narcotic nature of two of the medications, there should have been 
a disqualification from duty. If he were to take the medications 
without a prescription it would be the end of his military career, 
but questions why taking them under prescription did not affect 
his duty status. 

 

At no point during his injury was he ever placed on medical 
continuation orders and questioned several people, but was told 
that despite obtaining the “Line of duty" designation for the 
injury the process was denied for the entirety of the 
injury/recovery. 

 

He reiterates that the purpose of his request is to recover INCAP 
pay for the period of Mar through Apr 2011 that was denied due to 
an improper code assigned to his injury. He is not seeking 
medical continuation orders, whether warranted or not. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G. 

 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The Medical Consultant recommends consideration for amending the 
record to reflect a check mark was placed in Block 31 of the AF 
Form 469, initiated on 11 Mar 2011. The Medical Consultant states 
the only medical document under question is the applicant's AF 
Form 469, on which his provider left blank an important 


designation (purposefully or otherwise) on the form he initiated 
on 11 Mar 2011. In the previous advisory, the Medical Consultant 
found it inappropriate, and still does, to supplant his clinical 
judgment with that of the applicant's practitioner, noting the 
likelihood that the provider may have initiated the document at 
the time when it could not be definitively determined whether the 
course of treatment would extend beyond 30 days; particularly for 
a condition believed to be limited to muscle spasms. Based upon a 
preponderance of the clinical evidence of record, the Medical 
Consultant opines the applicant may have indeed been sufficiently 
impaired to warrant the designation of Code 31, that is, a 
condition which actually required treatment for 31 to 365 days for 
resolution. 

 

The Medical Consultant states, if the Board feels the applicant 
deserves the benefit, not based upon error, but upon a possible 
resultant retrospectively determined injustice, then granting 
relief is appropriate. Furthermore, since the inclusive period of 
time of duty restrictions imposed on 11 Mar 2011 [likely 
unintentionally] actually totaled 31 days, then it would seem 
legally disingenuous to then not have placed the check mark in 
block 31 to indicate the same. 

 

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

 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 26 Mar 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, 
a response has not been received (Exhibit I). 

 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting 
corrective action. After our review of the evidence before us 
and noting in particular the evaluation prepared by the BCMR 
Medical Consultant, we believe the applicant’s AF Form 469 
should be amended to reflect that a check mark was placed in 
Block 31 to reflect that his medical condition would be resolved 
within 31-365 days. In view of the above and as a matter of 
justice, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as 
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 the AF Form 469, 
initiated on 11 Mar 2011 be amended to reflect a check was placed 
in block 31. 

 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 1 May 2012, 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 29 Jul 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFRC/SG, dated 9 Dec 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Dec 2011. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 23 Feb 2012. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 16 Feb 2012. 

 Exhibit G. Rebuttal, Applicant, undated. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 Mar 2012, 

 w/atchs. 

 Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 26 Mar 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair