RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05854

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His records be corrected to show that he was not released from active duty on 7 Aug 12, but instead continued on active duty for medical continuation (MEDCON) until 4 Sep 12.  

2.  He be granted a disability retirement.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  His active duty orders should have been extended pending the resolution of his line of duty (LOD) determination, in accordance with AFRCI 36-3004, Incapacitation Pay and Management of Reservist Command on Active Duty Orders. 

2.  He has over eight years of active service and, in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1207a, he should be eligible for disability retirement due to his pre-existing condition.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he served in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of major (O-4) during the matter under review.  

On 11 Jan 12, the applicant was ordered to active duty for special work (ADSW) during the period 23 Jan 12 to 27 Jan 12, which was subsequently extended until 30 Sep 12.  

On 8 Jun 12, an AFRC IMT 348, Informal Line of Duty Determination, was initiated to evaluate the applicant’s rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other inflammatory polyarthropathy, for which he initially sought treatment on 12 Sep 07, for service connection.  It was initially determined his medical condition was not incurred or aggravated in the LOD, but existed prior to service (EPTS).

On 10 Jun 12, the applicant’s unit commander recommended his condition be found in the LOD.  

On 24 Jun 12, the staff judge advocate (SJA) non-concurred with the new recommended finding and recommended the applicant’s condition to be found EPTS-Service Aggravated.  

On 13 Aug 12, the LOD appointing authority recommended the applicant’s condition be found in the LOD and forwarded the decision to the AFRC LOD Board for review.  

On 24 Aug 12, the AFRC LOD Board’s medical reviewer non-concurred with the appointing authority and recommended a finding of EPTS-LOD Not Applicable.  

On 30 Aug 12, the AFRC LOD Board’s legal reviewer non-concurred with the appointing authority and recommended a finding of EPTS-Service Aggravated.  

On 4 Sep 12, the approving authority determined the applicant’s condition was EPTS-LOD Not Applicable.  

On 30 Sep 12, the applicant was released from active duty and reverted to his status as a traditional (part-time) member of the Air Force Reserve.

In accordance with AFI 36-2910, Line of Duty (Misconduct) Determination and 10 U.S.C. § 1207a, a disabling condition will be found to be in the line of duty (ILOD) if it becomes unfitting, even though the condition existed prior to service (EPTS), if the member has at least eight years of cumulative active service, and the member was on active duty orders specifying a period of more than 30 days at the time the condition became unfitting, as subsequently determined by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  

According to information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), the applicant had attained 14 years, 4 months, and 21 days of total active service as of 8 Dec 13.  

According to the applicant’s point credit accounting report summary (PCARS), he continued to perform his reserve duties subsequent to his release from active duty on 30 Sep 12, performing active and inactive duty on a variety of dates during the period 1 Oct 12 to the present.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D.  

________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFMOA/SGHI indicated the inability to make a recommendation due to the lack of authority to approve MEDCON orders in this instance.  Specifically, the Command Man-Day Allocation System (CMAS) does not show the applicant was on orders under their purview.  The orders submitted indicate the applicant was on ADSW, which is managed through AFRC.  

A complete copy of the AFMOA/SGHI evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFRC/SG indicated the applicant had a LOD initiated on 20 Mar 12 for a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.  On 4 Sep 12, it was determined his condition was EPTS-LOD Not Applicable.  He subsequently underwent a fitness for duty evaluation and was returned to duty with an assignment limitation code on 20 Nov 12.  As such, a PEB was not required.  Also, the applicant was on reserve personnel appropriation (RPA) orders for five days.  The MEDCON policy clearly identifies that those members on orders for less than 30 days are not entitled to orders, but may be kept on orders if deemed appropriate by the member’s commander.  It further appears the applicant remained capable of performing military duty, confirmed by the fact that he was returned to duty.  Therefore, medically he would likely not have been eligible or recommended for full time pay and benefits.  

A complete copy of the AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes he was on active duty orders for only five days and in accordance with AFRCI 36-3004, since he was on orders for well over 30 days, he should not have been released from his orders while a LOD determination was being processed.  Although he requested to remain on active duty orders, his commander disapproved his request.  Also, the applicant argues that he did not undergo a fitness for duty evaluation and was returned to duty with an assignment limitation code on 20 Nov 12.  He reiterates his argument that he was involuntarily released from duty and his orders were discontinued.  However, he continued to seek medical treatment from his rheumatologist and physical therapist.  Furthermore, he was advised to attend counseling based on the signs of anxiety and associated stressors from his workload and involuntary discontinuation of his orders.  He was diagnosed with depression which was masked by the RA.  As such, he should have been continued on orders because he was not able to return back to work.  The symptoms he was being treated for were associated with his LOD.  He has requested a reinvestigation of his previous LOD determination; however, he will be resubmitting another LOD to account for the symptoms (stress, insomnia, anxiety, and depression experienced during his orders) and diagnosis received during his veteran’s administration (VA) medical evaluation (Exhibit F).

________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  The applicant contends that because he has attained more than eight years of cumulative active duty service that he should have been retained on active duty due to his rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ultimately retired for physical disability for said condition.  However, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, we are not convinced he is the victim of an error or injustice.  While the record does indicate the applicant suffers from RA, he has presented no evidence that would indicate that said condition is unfitting.  In fact, a review of his record reveals that the applicant has continued to successfully perform his duties since the events in question and his ability to do so undermines any argument, absence specific evidence to the contrary, that his condition is unfitting.  While it is true that the eight-year rule prescribed in AFI 36-2910, Line of Duty (Misconduct) Determination and 10 U.S.C. § 1207a dictates that a non-duty related condition can form the basis of disability benefits, the condition in question must be unfitting and be the cause a service member to be unable to perform the duties of his/her office and/or grade to be eligible for disability benefits.  However, in this case, the applicant has provided no evidence whatsoever which would cause us to believe that his RA is unfitting.  In fact, a thorough review of his military personnel records reveals that he has continued to perform his military duties since the events in question as evidenced by his point credit accounting report summary (PCARS), which indicates he has performed a variety of active and inactive duty.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief requested in this application.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-05854 in Executive Session on 23 Jan 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFMO/SGHI, dated 13 May 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFRC/SG, dated 20 Jun 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Nov 13.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   
                                   Acting Panel Chair
                                    







2