RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03709 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be placed on invitational travel orders to attend a 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for determining whether he meets 
retention standards for: diabetes, migraine headaches and a 
knee injury. 

 

2. His MEB results be forwarded to the Air Force Informal 
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for disability percentage 
determination. 

 

3. If retired by the IPEB, his retirement date be set as 1 May 
2010. 

 

4. He receive retirement back pay from 1 January 2010 to 
present. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was a reservist and a C-5 flight engineer who was unjustly 
denied access to and the benefit of the Disability Evaluation 
System. He sustained three unfitting conditions while on active 
duty. An MEB was initiated in 2010 and it was improperly 
handled. 

 

AFI 36-3212 provides that a disease or injury incurred by a 
reservist serving on active duty for more than 30 days shall 
cause the reservist to remain on active duty until final 
disposition of his case. 

 

On 1 September 2005, while on active duty, the applicant struck 
his head while on an aircraft. An LOD was initiated on 
6 September 2005. 

 

On 22 July 2007, he was on active duty orders for more than 
30 days and was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus. 

 

On 12 February 2008, he was grounded from flying when the Line 
of Duty (LOD) was initiated. He was medically disqualified from 
aviation on 10 February 2009. On 11 May 2009, an MEB was 
initiated while he was in Reserve status. He suffered a second 
head injury in July 2009 which caused migraine headaches. 


Additionally, in July 2009 while on active duty orders, he 
injured his knee. 

 

The narrative summary completed on 19 January 2010 identified 
Type II diabetes as the sole unfitting condition. However, the 
MEB found him fit for duty. His case was treated as a 
disability arising from medical conditions incurred while he was 
not on active duty; hence the unfit or fit determination. This 
is a case where the unfitting condition arose while the 
applicant was serving on active duty. Accordingly, the IPEB 
processing was required. A new MEB should be convened and his 
case should be sent to the IPEB for proper adjudication. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a legal brief, 
copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty, Certificate of the Board of Inquiry Transcript 
and other supporting documentation. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a master sergeant in the Air Force Reserves. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force which is are Exhibits B and C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/SG recommends denial. The member suffered a simple 
laceration to his left forehead while deployed to Moron Air 
Base, Spain in September 2005. The laceration was treated and 
he was grounded for one week while the wound healed. He was 
subsequently returned to full flying status. An LOD was 
initiated but never completed. There was no disabling or 
disqualifying issue; therefore no requirement for a Medical 
Evaluation Board existed. 

 

Notes submitted by the applicant shows he complained of 
headaches in September 2010, yet there was no mention or service 
connection to the head laceration injury sustained in 2005. 
Headaches are not necessarily disqualifying per AFI 48-123. 

 

An LOD for mild tri-compartmental osteoarthritis of the knee was 
completed with a finding of Existed Prior to Service on 
30 September 2011. Therefore, he was not eligible for an MEB. 

 

The applicant’s medical conditions were managed administratively 
and no requirement for a MEB existed at the time. He was 


reviewed and returned to duty in accordance with applicable 
guidelines. 

 

The complete AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s attorney states AFRC has developed a pattern and 
practice of violating Air Force regulations by taking over 
disability cases that arose on active duty. The applicant’s 
diagnosis of diabetes disqualified the applicant from aviation 
and warranted an MEB. An MEB was completed but not forwarded to 
the IPEB as required. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE ADVISORY: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The military 
Disability Evaluation System (DES) operates under Title 10, 
United States Code and is charged with maintaining a fit and 
vital fighting force. Furthermore, it can only, by law, offer 
compensation for the illness or injury that is the cause for 
career termination; and then, only to the degree of severity 
present at the snapshot time of final military disposition. 

 

The mere diagnosis of a condition does not automatically warrant 
an unfit finding, although Type II Diabetes Mellitus is an 
example of a condition initially determined to be disqualifying 
for military service. The applicant’s service treatment shows 
he was diagnosed and treated for knee pain, lumbar pain, and 
migraine headaches. The clinical evidence does not show his 
providers implemented duty restrictions of a sufficient level or 
duration to have warranted an independent basis for referral 
through the DES, or to justify this request for a delayed 
reentry to the DES. 

 

The requirements for maintaining Flying Class I, II and III 
standards for certain medical conditions may be more stringent 
than those for non-flying duties. Although the applicant was 
prescribed a medication other than that over the counter 
(disqualifying for flying standards), the evidence does not 
clearly demonstrate his headaches resulted in frequent absences 
from duty or unrelieved by treatment (disqualifying for non-
flying standards). 

 

Similarly, the applicant’s knee pain, subtle but distinguishable 
differences in retention standards are presented. Severe, 
manifested by frequent joint effusion, more than moderate 
interference with function, or with severe residuals from 


surgery versus, chondramalacia if symptomatic, or there is 
verified history of joint effusion, indifference with function 
or residuals from surgery. The less severe symptoms are 
required to be disqualifying for flying duties. The applicant 
was a flight engineer and only became disqualified for further 
flying due to his Diabetes. He was consequently assigned to 
duties that did not involve flying. That does not automatically 
qualify the applicant or infer that he was unfit for further 
military service merely because he was restricted from flying 
status. 

 

Regarding the applicant’s concerns for AFRC’s alleged failure to 
follow regulatory guidance, the applicant is advised that under 
innovations implemented under the Deployment Availability 
Working Group (DAWG), individuals with certain medical 
conditions who have demonstrated the ability to perform their 
primary duties, but require a certain defined level of care 
availability can be retained and issued an Assignment Limitation 
Code without further DES processing. These decisions are 
initiated at the level of the individual medical treatment 
facility and are implemented in coordination with officials at 
HQ AFPC/DPAMM, Medical Standards Division, or in the case of the 
Reserve component HQ AFRC/SG. Such individuals are not 
guaranteed indefinite retention, but must undergo periodic 
assessments to determine retainability. In this case, HQ 
AFRC/SG exercised its option to retain the applicant with an 
ALC-C1, noting the applicant was capable of performing military 
duties. 

 

Based on the available service records, or lack thereof, absence 
of duty-limiting documents for the applicant’s headaches and 
knee ailment, and the aforementioned policy statements, the 
Medical Consultant opines 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 evaluation, with 
attachments, is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s counsel responded to the BCMR Medical 
Consultant. Counsel maintains a medical board was convened 
while the applicant was in reserve status to review conditions 
incurred on active duty. Counsel says this board was not within 
AFRC’s jurisdiction and should have required a referral to the 
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). The applicant was 
diagnosed with Type II Diabetes and did not meet retention 
standards. The IPEB had the right to see that document and the 
applicant had a right to expect the IPEB would see the document. 

 

This advisory opinion does not address the regulatory failure 
and cannot be substituted for a medical board. The advisory 


opinion as to the applicant’s retention is irrelevant as only a 
medical board can do that. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

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

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We 
carefully considered the available evidence of record and the 
applicant’s response to the Air Force advisories; however, we 
found no indication any of the actions taken with regard to the 
applicant’s medical treatment and subsequent actions thereof 
were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing 
instructions. 

 

4. AFI 36-3212 allows for a reserve member to be retained in 
the reserves and returned to duty even though he may have a 
medical condition that requires some restrictions. According to 
paragraph 8.16.1 of AFI 36-3212, if an MEB finds the member is 
fit, he will be returned to his assigned unit or, if his period 
of duty has expired, he will be sent home. This is the case 
with the applicant. He was disqualified from flying duties, but 
was qualified and fit for military duties including deployment 
(with the restriction that there be a fixed medical treatment 
nearby). In April 2010, the MEB at the 80th Medical Group (AMC) 
and the DAWG returned the applicant to duty (and back to AFRC/SG 
jurisdiction). There are two possible outcomes of an MEB under 
AFI 36-3212: either (a) return the member to duty, or (b) 
forward his case to the IPEB. If he is returned to duty, as the 
applicant was, his case cannot be forwarded to the IPEB. Since 
the applicant’s diabetes mellitis was well controlled, the MEB 
properly returned him to duty. The applicant is mistaken that 
AFRC/SG made an unauthorized decision. The April 15, 2010, 
letter from AFRC/SG was carrying out, reporting and disposing of 
the April 9, 2010, findings of the active duty MEB that returned 
him to duty. 

 

5. Additionally, AFI 48-123 implements AFI 36-3212. Paragraph 
1.2 of AFI 48-123 states that a medical examination may serve 
more than one purpose. Section 5 of AFI 48-123 explains that 
diabetes mellitis is only potentially disqualifying. Thus, the 
MEB findings of fitness under 36-3212 are consistent with AFI 
48-123, and the applicant was properly returned to duty. There 
was, and is, no justification or requirement to refer the 
applicant’s case to the IPEB. Therefore, we agree with AFRC/SG 
and the BCMR Medical Consultant’s assessment of the case and 
adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 


applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice and 
find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

6. 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 issues 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 BCMR Docket Number 
BC-2011-03709 in Executive Session on 28 June 2012 and on 
11 July 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

The following documentary was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 29 Aug 11, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/SG, undtd. 

Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dtd 16 Dec 11. 

Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dtd 13 Jan 12, w/atch. 

Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 25 May 12, w/atchs. 

Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dtd 30 May 12. 

Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 27 Jun 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair