AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PRPOCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00285 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1. The  Board  re-evaluate  his  retirement  to  show  that  he  was 
retired  by  reason  of  “physical  disability”  rather  than 
“voluntary length of service.”  
 
2. He be compensated for all unfitting injuries and disabilities 
he received during his 23 years of service.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
His  physicians  provided  an  incomplete  and  erroneous  record, 
omitting multiple unfitting conditions of his total disability.  
If all the facts and unfitting disabling conditions were justly 
considered, he would have been medically retired at 100 percent. 
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement,  copies  of  his  AF  Form  618,  Medical  Board  Report;  AF 
Forms  356,  Findings  and  Recommended  Disposition  of  the  USAF 
Physical  Evaluation  Board; AF Form 1180,  Action  on  Informal  PEB 
Findings  and  Recommended  Disposition,  rebuttal  memorandums  and 
various other documentation associated with his request.  
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 Nov 86.   
 
In  Feb  06,  the  applicant  underwent  a  medical  cross-training 
evaluation  because  of  his  left  sensorineural  hearing  loss  with 
onset  suddenly  occurring  while  he  was  deployed.    It  was 
recommended that he cross-train, as he was “exposed to hazardous 
noise that may further damage his remaining hearing.”  
 
In  May  06,  the  applicant  was  reassigned  to  the  31st  Mission 
Support  Squadron  (31MSS)  as  an  Airman  and  Family  Readiness 
Center  Noncommissioned  Officer  (8C000).    In  Mar  07,  he  was 
reassigned to the 31st Fighter Wing (31FW) as an Air Force Smart 
Operations 21 (AFSO21) facilitator.  In Sep 07, the applicant’s 

primary care manager (PCM) assessed his condition and determined 
that he was still a valuable asset to the Air Force despite his 
current medical condition.  Furthermore, his PCM concluded that 
removal  from  his  current  career  field  (Security  Forces)  could 
greatly improve his current medical condition.  The applicant’s 
PCM recommended he be cross-trained.  
 
In Nov 07, the applicant was seen by his PCM for chronic right 
shoulder  pain,  status-post  distal  clavicle  resection  and 
ligament  repair.    The  PCM  noted  he  was  “unable  to  do  pushups, 
but  able  to  reach  overhead,  carry  heavy  loads,  but  not 
repetitive  heavy  pushing.    The  applicant’s  AF  Form  469,  Duty 
Limiting  Condition  (DLC)  Report,  block  31,  (illness  or  injury 
will  be  resolved  within  31  to  365  days)  or  block  37,  (medical 
defect  or  condition)  were  left  blank  without  a  check  mark  to 
indicate  his  prognosis.    The  commander’s  input  to  the  MEB 
indicated the applicant was “unable to withstand the rigors and 
deployment  requirements  of  his  Security  Forces  (3P071)  career 
field and was placed into Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 9A000, 
which  denotes  “Airman  awaiting  retraining  –  disqualified  for 
reason  beyond  control.”  His  final  recommendation  was  to  “allow 
the applicant to remain on active duty at Aviano Air Base, Italy 
until  his  High  Year  of  Tenure  (HYT)  date  as  an  AFSO21 
facilitator  and  trainer.    Further,  the  commander  stated  the 
applicant  was  willing  to  continue  in  this  capacity  and  is 
contributing a valuable service to the 31FW and the Air Force.  
 
On 5 Nov 08, a new Duty Limiting Condition Report indicated the 
applicant  had  mobility  restrictions.    The  specific  limitations 
were  recorded  as  “no  running,  no  kneeling/squatting/frequent 
bending,  no  high  impact  activities,  and  no  weight  bearing  on 
right shoulder.”  There is no discussion of a hearing impairment 
or  gait  disturbance  due  to  disequilibrium.    A  check  mark  was 
placed  in  block  37  to  indicate,  medical  defect/condition 
requires  MEB  or  PEB  processing  IAW  AFI  41-210,  Tricare 
Operations and Patient Administration Functions.   
 
On  4  Jan  09,  a  medical  evaluation  board  (MEB)  convened  to 
consider  the  applicant  for  continued  active  duty.    The  board 
recommended  the  applicant  be  referred  to  an  Informal  Physical 
Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)  only  for  osteoarthritis  and  bilateral 
knees.    The  applicant  was  informed  of  the  findings  and 
recommendations  of  the  board  and  did  not  provide  a  letter  of 
exception or rebuttal. 
 
On 10 Apr 09, the IPEB reviewed the case and found the applicant 
unfit  and  recommended  permanent  retirement  with  a  combined 
disability  rating  of  20  percent    for  osteoarthritis  in  both 
knees.  The IPEB noted “you have been unable to perform Security 
Forces duties since 2007 due to limitations resulting from your 
continued bilateral knee pain.”  
 
On 14 Apr 09, the applicant non-concurred with the findings and 
recommended  disposition  of  the  IPEB  and  requested  a  formal 

 

2

hearing with counsel.  The applicant agreed with the 20 percent 
disability  rating  of  the  bilateral  osteoarthritis  of  his  knees 
and  requested  that  his  Meniere’s  Syndrome  be  rated  at 
100 percent and his chronic shoulder pain be rated at 10 percent 
for a combined disability rating of 100 percent.   
 
On  27  May  09,  based  on  a  review  of  the  medical  evidence  the 
Formal PEB (FPEB) recommended the applicant be returned to duty, 
finding neither the knee osteoarthritis, Meniere’s Syndrome, nor 
chronic shoulder pain unfitting.  The FPEB also referred to the 
commander’s  assessment  indicating  his  conditions  have  not 
precluded  him  from  performing  as  an  Air  Force  Smart  Operations 
21 (AFSO21) facilitator, has missed no duty time, and continues 
to contribute to the wing and Air Force mission. 
 
On  29  May  09,  the  applicant  non-concurred  with  the  finding  and 
recommended  disposition  of  the  FPEB  and  requested  his  case  be 
forwarded  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council 
(SAFPC) for review and final decision.   
 
On  17  Aug  09,  the  SAFPC  considered  the  applicant’s  contention 
for  permanent  retirement  with  a  100  percent  disability  rating.  
Following a review of all the facts and evidence in his case, to 
include the testimony presented before the FPEB, the remarks by 
the FPEB, the remarks by the IPEB, the service medical records, 
and  the  narrative  summary  of  the  MEB,  the  SAFPC  concurred  with 
the disposition recommended by the FPEB to return the applicant 
to duty.   
 
On 27 Oct 09, the applicant’s service retirement application was 
approved.  On 1 Mar 10, the applicant was retired in the grade 
of master sergeant after serving 23 years, 3 months and 11 days 
of active service.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
HQ  AFPC/DPSD  recommends  denial.    Department  of  Defense 
Instruction  (DoDI)  1332.38,  Physical  Disability  Evaluation 
states  “if  the  evidence  establishes  that  the  service  member 
adequately  performed  his  or  her  duties  until  the  time  the 
service member was referred for physical evaluation, the member 
may  be  considered  fit  for  duty  even  though  medical  evidence 
indicates  questionable  physical  ability  to  continue  to  perform 
duty.    The  applicant’s  ineligibility  to  reenlist  is  an 
administrative policy, not grounds for a disability retirement.”  
 
The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 

 

3

By  letter  dated  10  Nov  12,  the  applicant  stated  his  military 
career  was  terminated  prematurely  by  his  physical  disabilities 
and ultimately these disabilities denied him the opportunity to 
reach  his  high  year  of  tenure  (HYT)  as  a  master  sergeant  or 
continue  his  military  service.    The  Air  Force  ended  his  career 
prematurely  from  the  injuries  he  received  while  deployed  in 
support  of  Operations  IRAQI  and  ENDURING  FREEDOM  (OIF/OEF)  or 
while training and preparing to perform missions during war as a 
Security Forces member.  He continues to struggle everyday with 
his current and unfitting conditions and disabilities.  
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit E.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 an injustice.  After a 
thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s 
complete  submission,  including  his  response  to  the  Air  Force 
evaluation,  we  are  not  convinced  he  has  been  the  victim  of  an 
error  or  injustice.    Therefore,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The 
applicant  contends  his  physicians  provided  an  incomplete  and 
erroneous  record  omitting  multiple  unfitting  conditions  of  his 
total  disability.    He  also  contends  his  military  career  was 
terminated  prematurely  due  to  his  physical  disabilities  and 
ultimately  these  disabilities  denied  him  further  opportunity  to 
reach  his  HYT  as  a  master  sergeant  or  continue  his  military 
service.    We  disagree.   We note the mere presence of a medical 
condition  does  not  automatically  warrant  an  unfit  finding  and 
medical  release  from  military  service;  particularly  in  the 
context  of  the  expressed  needs  and  desires  of  the  Air  Force.  
While  the  applicant’s  chronic  degenerative  arthritis  of  both 
knees  clearly  interfered  with  his  ability  to  perform  Security 
Forces duties, and presented as early as 2004, his reassignment 
to  administrative  duties  allowed  him  to  achieve  length  of 
service  retirement  eligibility.    Had  the  applicant  been 
processed  through  the  military  Disability  Evaluation  System 
(DES) in 2006 or 2007 for his knee ailments, he would have been 
at  risk  for  a  rating  decision  that  would  have  fallen  short  of 
medical  and  length  of  service  retirement  eligibility  if  found 
unfit; noting that both knees were rated at only 10 percent each 
by the IPEB and post-service, by the DVA.  In addition, we note, 
the  Military  Disability  Evaluation  System  (MDES)  only  offers 

 

4

compensation  for  the  medical  condition  that  is  the  cause  for 
career  termination;  and  then  only  to  the  degree  of  impairment 
present at the time of final disposition or military separation.  
Conversely,  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  operates 
under  a  separate  set  of  laws  which  takes  into  account  the  fact 
that  a  person  can  acquire  physical  conditions  during  military 
service  that,  although  not  unfitting  at  the  time  of  separation, 
may  later  progress  in  severity  and  alter  the  individual's 
lifestyle  and  future  employability.    Therefore,  in  view  of  the 
above and 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-2012-00285  in  Executive  Session  on  11  Dec  12,  under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00285 was considered: 
 
       Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jan 12, w/atchs. 
       Exhibit B.  Applicant's Military Personnel Records. 
       Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 20 Mar 12. 
       Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Oct 12.  
       Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Nov 12, w/atchs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 

 
Panel Chair 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

   
   
   

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

5