AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01103 
COUNSEL:  NO 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
     
 
     
 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His official records be corrected to show that: 
 
1.  He  was  not  released  from  active  duty  in  Jun  08,  but  was 
continued on Medical Continuation Orders. 
 
2.  He met a Medical Evaluation Board to establish a retirement 
date for his disability retirement.   
 
3.  He  was  re-authorized  proper  reconstitution  leave  after  his 
medical treatment was complete.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1.  He  was  treated  differently  because  he  was  in  the  Air 
National  Guard  (ANG).    He  was  on  active  duty  in  Iraq  when  he 
sustained  an  injury  due  to  being  electrocuted.    The 
Expeditionary Medical Support (EMEDS) did not have the facility 
or means to properly assess his injury, and refused to send him 
to a facility which did.  EMEDS told him they would not continue 
with his medical evaluation because his tour of duty was almost 
complete and he should seek medical attention upon returning to 
his home.  The delay caused further injury.   
 
2.  Upon returning home, he was placed in a reconstitution leave 
status when he should have received Medical Continuation Orders 
and  remained  on  active  duty  for  the  remainder  of  his  medical 
evaluation  and  treatment.    The  Medical  Squadron  tried  to 
minimize medical reporting by utilizing TRICARE and having each 
appointment  and  procedure  pre-authorized.    His  medical 
treatments  continued  after  the  reconstitution  leave  was  over.  
Consideration  of  a  Line  of  Duty  (LOD)  determination  was  an 
afterthought that took place in CONUS.   
 
3.  His  injury  was  more  extensive  than  was  stated  in  the  LOD.  
The descriptive narrative of his 80% VA compensatory disability 
rating is a more accurate description of his injuries.  Because 
of  the  wording  of  the  LOD  and  the  regimented  pre-authorization 

requirement  for  appointments  he  could  not  receive  the  medical 
care he needed.   
 
4.  The  107th  Medical  Squadron’s  reasoning  that  his  ability  to 
show up for duty is a reason to restrict his medical treatment 
is not correct.  Being physically “unable” in military terms is 
not the same as being incapable of performing work.   
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  an  expanded 
statement and copies correspondence from his Wing IG Letter and 
his  DVA  disability  rating  decision,  AF  Form  938,  Line  of  Duty 
(LOD)  Determination,  Point  Credit  Accounting  Summary  (PCARS), 
and excerpts from his military records and military and civilian 
medical records. 
 The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  serves  as  a  Master  Sergeant  in  the  Air  National 
Guard.   
 
On 7 Apr 08, while deployed to Iraq, the applicant sustained an 
injury to his right shoulder while pulling an electrical cable.  
 
On  23  Jun  08,  after  returning  from  his  deployment  to  Iraq  and 
being  released  from  active  duty,  a  Line  of  Duty  Determination 
found his injury to be in the line of duty.   
 
On  28  Feb  11,  according  to  information  provided  by  the 
applicant, the DVA notified the applicant they had increased his 
compensatory  disability  rating  to  30  percent  for  right-sided 
hemidiaphragmatic paralysis.   
 
On 25 Sep 11, the applicant submitted an AF IMT 102,  Inspector 
General Personal and Fraud Waste & Abuse Complaint Registration, 
with  his  wing  IG  office  requesting  proper  accrediting  of 
military  duty  for  continuance  of  active  duty  for  medical 
treatment, for being directed to seek medical treatment when on 
reconstitution  leave  status,  for  being  on  reconstitution  leave 
after  his  medical  condition  was  determined,  and  requesting 
medical retirement from active duty with a proper start date for 
disability retirement due to his LOD injury.   
 
On  11  Feb  12,  the  IG  responded  to  the  applicant’s  complaint, 
stating  that  the  applicant  was  not  determined  to  be  unfit  for 
duty  by  the  medical  doctors  at  EMEDS  in  Iraq  nor  were  any 
documents provided from the VA doctors to indicate he was  unfit 
for  duty.    Therefore,  the  applicant  was  not  placed  on 
Incapacitation Pay.  Further, since Medical Continuation Orders 
cannot be backdated, the IG could offer the applicant no relief 

 
2 

for  the  time  period  for  which  he  believes  he  should  have  been 
kept on MEDCON Orders.   
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described  in  the  letters  prepared  by  the  Air  Force  offices  of 
primary responsibility, which are included at Exhibits C and D.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFMOA/SGHI recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an  error  or  injustice.    There  is  no  documentation  to  indicate 
that  a  Command  Man-day  Allocation  System  (CMAS)  request  was 
submitted  for  the  applicant.    The  letter  from  the  Wing  IG 
indicates the applicant’s LOD was completed and determined to be 
in-the-line of duty after the applicant was released from active 
duty  and  had  returned  to  work  at  his  civilian  job  and  as  a 
traditional  Guardsman.    There  was  no  medical  documentation 
provided or in the electronic outpatient medical record (AHLTA) 
to  suggest  the  member  was  unable  to  perform  duties  while 
deployed.    Further,  the  guidance  used  for  MEDCON  Management  at 
the time the member was on active duty and then demobilized, is 
based  on  Incapacitation  Directives  such  as  DoDI  1241.2,  dated 
30 May  01,  Reserve  Component  Incapacitation  System  Management, 
which  indicate  that  a  reserve  component  member  who  is  able  to 
perform  military  duties,  as  determined  by  the  Secretary 
concerned, but demonstrates a loss of earned income as a result 
of an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated in the 
line  of  duty  is  entitled  to  pay  and  allowances,  including  all 
incentive  and  special  pay  to  which  entitled,  if  otherwise 
eligible.    However,  as  stated  in  the  IG  findings  provided,  the 
applicant  returned  to  work  both  at  his  civilian  job  and  as  a 
traditional  guardsman,  without  any  loss  of  duty  time  since 
returning to work.  If a service member is able to perform their 
military  duties  and  return  to  their  civilian  jobs  there  is  no 
basis  to  retain  that  member  on  active  duty  orders  for  MEDCON.  
Additionally,  members  are  required  to  complete  medical 
evaluations prior to any leave or reconstitution time.    
 
A complete copy of the AFMOA/SGHI evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial,  indicating 
there  is  no  evidence  of  an  error  or  injustice.    There  is  no 
medical information available for this review regarding the date 
of  injury,  clinical  assessment,  treatment,  duty  limiting 
restrictions  or  recommended  follow-up  from  the  EMEDS  treatment 
facility.  The narrative indicates the applicant had sustained a 
right  shoulder  injury  while  pulling  a  secondary  distribution 
cable.    An  LOD  determination  completed  after  redeployment  to 
CONUS  indicated  throbbing  pain,  with  pins  and  needles,  which 
radiated from the right shoulder to the right hand followed the 
shock  injury.    The  evidence  submitted  for  this  review  fails  to 
document any duty-limiting injury, profile restriction or other 
objective  evidence  of  functional  limitations.    While  the 

 
3 

narrative statements provided describe treatment provided at the 
Baghdad  International  Airport  (BIAP)  medical  clinic,  there  was 
no medical information to review the severity of the LOD injury 
or  whether  it  warranted  continuance  of  active  duty  orders.   
Records indicate that, upon redeployment to CONUS and completion 
of military reconstitution leave, the applicant returned to work 
at  his  civilian  job  and  resumed  his  military  duties  as  a 
traditional  guardsman.    There  was  no  indication  of  any  duty  or 
work  restrictions  or  functional  impediment  to  duty  resulting 
from any potentially unfitting medical condition.   
 
With  regard  to  the  applicant’s  contention  he  should  have  been 
continued  on  active  duty  orders,  SAF/MR  Memorandum,  Medical 
Continuation/Extensions  for  Reserve  Component  (RC)  Members 
Serving  in  Support  of  a  Contingency,  states  that  continuation 
may  be  warranted  when  an  airman  identified  for  early 
demobilization has a disqualifying medical issue that cannot be 
resolved  prior  to  the  orders  demobilization  date.    The  records 
submitted  for  review  fail  to  provide  objective  evidence  of  an 
unfitting  or  disqualifying  medical  condition  at  or  following 
demobilization.    In  fact,  evidence  to  the  contrary  is 
substantial  with  resumption  of  normal  civilian  and  military 
duties following completion of military reconstitution leave.    
 
Medical  Evaluation  Boards  (MEBs)  are  convened  to  identify  and 
assess  the  possible  existence  of  an  unfitting  or  disqualifying 
medical  condition.    In  this  case,  no  unfitting  condition  is 
documented prior to the applicant resuming both normal military 
and  civilian  work  responsibilities.    Therefore,  an  MEB  was  not 
medically indicated.  
 
Addressing 
medical 
separation/retirement, the military Disability Evaluation System 
(DES)  can  by  law  only  offer  compensation  for  those  service 
incurred  diseases  or  injuries  which  specifically  rendered  a 
member unfit for continued active service and were the cause of 
career  termination;  and  then  only  for  the  degree  of  impairment 
present  at  the  time  of  separation  and  not  based  on  future 
occurrences.  It could not be established that the applicant was 
unable  to  reasonably  perform  his  military  duties  due  to  one  of 
more  medical  conditions  during  his  military  service  or  at  the 
time  of  his  release  from  active  duty  orders.    Moreover,  under 
DoDI  1332.32, 
Physical  Disability  Evaluation,  Paragraph 
E3.P3.3.3.,  Adequate  Performance  Unit  Referral,  it  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.”  
Based  upon  the  supplied  Service  medical  evidence,  the  Medical 
Consultant  found  no  medical  condition  that  established  a  cause 
and effect relationship with the termination of the applicant’s 
service  or  as  an  alternative  reason  for  his  release  from 
military  service.    Although  the  applicant  was  evaluated  and 
ultimately  granted  compensation  for  a  number  of  alleged 

applicant’s 

the 

 
4 

request 

for 

a 

conditions resulting from an electrical injury by the Department 
of  Veterans  affairs  (DVA),  none  have  been  shown  to  have  been 
clinically  present  or  interfered  with  his  military  service  to 
the extent or duration that warranted placement on Medical Hold 
or  Medical  Continuation  Orders  for  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board 
and processing through the DES.  Operating under a different set 
of laws (Title 38, United States Code) with a different purpose, 
the  DVA  is  authorized  to  offer  compensation  for  any  medical 
condition  determined  service  incurred,  without  regard  to  its 
demonstrated  or  proven  impact  upon  a  service  member’s  fitness 
for  continued  active  service  or  narrative  reason  for  release 
from military service; nor the intervening or transpired period 
since  the  date  of  separation.    This  is  the  reason  why  an 
individual  can  be  found  fit  for  release  from  active  military 
service and yet sometime thereafter receive compensation ratings 
from the DVA for a condition found service-connected, but which 
were not proven militarily unfitting during the period of active 
service.   
 
A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit D. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  applicant  submitted  copies  of  his  DD  Form  214,  Certificate 
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and voluminous amounts 
of  medical  documentation  from  his  medical  records  intended  to 
indicate he was unit for duty.   
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  took 
notice  of  the  applicant’s  complete  submission  in  judging  the 
merits of the case, to include the voluminous documentation the 
applicant  submitted  in  rebuttal  to  the  Air  Force  advisories; 
however,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and  recommendations  of  the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR 
Medical  Consultant  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
of injustice.  In particular, we note the statements of the Air 
Force OPR and AFBCMR Medical Consultant which indicate that upon 
redeployment  to  CONUS  from  Iraq  and  completion  of  military 
reconstitution  leave,  the  applicant  returned  to  work  at  his 
civilian  job  and  resumed  his  military  duties  as  a  traditional 
guardsman,  and  there  was  no  indication  of  any  duty  or  work 

 
5 

restrictions or functional impediment to duty resulting from any 
potentially unfitting medical condition.  Absent evidence of an 
unfitting condition, there was no basis upon which to place the 
applicant on medical continuation orders or medical hold for an 
MEB and processing through the DES. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application.   
 
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 issues involved.  
Therefore,  the  request  for  a  hearing  is  not  favorably 
considered. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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-2012-01103  in  Executive  Session  on  17  Jan  13,  under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
  
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
 
 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFMOA/SGHI, dated 7 May 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 17 Dec 12. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Dec 12.   
Exhibit G.  Documentation, Applicant, undated.  

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                   Panel Chair 
 

13 Dec 12. 

BCMR 

Medical 

Consultant, 

dated 

 
6