DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01182 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
    
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  He be continued on Medical Continuation (MEDCON) orders from 
24 March 2010  through  1  November  2010  and  receive  back  pay  and 
allowances for that timeframe.   
 
2.  His  five  Lines  of  Duty  Determinations  (LODs)  that  were 
abandoned be processed to completion.   
 
3.  He be medically retired effective 1 November 2010.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
In  a  twelve-page  personal  statement  the  applicant  presents  the 
following contentions: 
 
  a.  During the course of specialized training and conditioning 
for  a  six-month  assignment  to  Speicher  Air  Base  (AB),  Iraq,  he 
suffered  shoulder  and  low  back  pain  and  a  large  posterior 
vitreous  detachment  in  his  right  eye  which  caused  blurred 
vision.    The  Army  medical  facility  took  x-rays  of  his  shoulder 
and treated the pain with a steroid shot.  He was told to see a 
surgeon when he returned stateside.   
 
  b.  Due  to  a  lack  of  knowledge  of  reserve  component  medical 
care  policy,  regulations,  and  poor  administration  and 
cooperation  between  reserve  management  and  active  duty  units, 
four of his LODs were not processed in a timely manner resulting 
in  loss  of  pay,  medical  care  and  ability  to  meet  a  medical 
evaluation board.   
 
  c.  His  commander  incorrectly  informed  him  that  he  could  not 
go  on  MEDCON  orders  until  the  LODs  were  completed.    The  LODs 
took over six months to complete in spite of the stated goal of 
39  days  per  page  12  of  AFI  36-2910,  Line  of  Duty  (Misconduct) 
Determination.    Because  of  the  lengthy  processing,  little  time 
remained for appeals.   
 
  d.  A medical evaluation board was not conducted on his behalf 
because  of  careless  administration  and  incorrect  coding  of  the 

AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Conditions Report which contained the 
following significant errors:  
 
    (1)  The  “Physical  Limitations/Restrictions  block  did  not 
include a reduction or weight limit to accommodate his shoulder 
pain nor did it place him on weapons restriction because of his 
blurred vision.   
 
    (2) Code 31; “Illness or Injury will be Resolved Within 31-
365  Days”  was  check  marked  instead  of  code  37;  “Medical 
Defect/Condition  Requires  MEB  or  PEB  Processing  (IAW  AFI  41-
210).”   
 
  e.  His  final  AFRC  IMT  348,  Informal  Line  of  Duty 
Determination,  contained  a  change  of  date  and  a  change  in  the 
medical  officer’s  signature  block  from  the  medical  officer 
overseeing  his  case  to  an  enlisted  member  who  was  not  a 
physician.   
 
  f.  He could not deploy, complete his annual two-week tour, or 
accomplish  mandays  because  of  his  medical  coding,  yet,  at  the 
very  same  time,  he  was  not  medically  continued  on  orders, 
precluding  him  from  receiving  treatment  for  his  conditions  or 
starting new LODs.  His second set of LODs were never processed.   
 
  g.  He  received  several  documents  to  sign  verifying  he  was 
briefed on his responsibilities for the LOD process; however, he 
was not briefed.  He was given the documents via email over five 
months after the LOD processing began.  Additionally AFMOA, the 
local  BIMAA  and  his  commander  were  still  coordinating  with  him 
and  working  MEDCON  orders  issues  well  past  his  retirement  date 
because  neither  they  nor  he  knew  that  he  was  retired  effective 
1 November 2010.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
According  to  copies  of  documents  extracted  from  his  Military 
Personnel  Record  (MPR)  the  applicant  is  a  former  commissioned 
officer of the Regular Air Force and Air Force Reserves.  He was 
progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  Lieutenant  Colonel,  (O-
5),  with  an  effective  date  of  rank  and  pay  grade  of 
1 October 2003.    During  his  reserve  service,  the  applicant 
completed  five  active  duty  tours  for  a  combined  total  of 
3 years, 7 months and 4 days of active duty service.   
 
Effective 1 November 2010, the applicant was relieved from his, 
then,  current  assignment  and  assigned  to  the  Retired  Reserve 
section awaiting pay at age 60 (24 February 2015).   

 

 
2 

 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFRC/SG  recommends  denial.    AFRC/SG  states  the  applicant’s 
statements  and  medical  records  reveal  that  his  shoulder 
condition  stems  from  his  time  in  the  Regular  Air  Force.  
Although  orthopedic  conditions  that  affect  one’s  ability  to 
perform functions of the AFSC are potentially disqualifying, he 
was  able  to  continue  to  perform  his  military  duties  for  many, 
many  years  after  leaving  active  duty  and  joining  the  AF 
Reserves.    Therefore,  he  was  not  eligible  for  a  medical  board 
because  his  condition  clearly  overcame  the  presumption  of 
fitness.  His underlying condition was not permanently worsened 
beyond  its  natural  progression  as  is  required  in  AFI  36-2910, 
Line of Duty (Misconduct) Determination. He was found not in the 
line  of  duty  for  his  original  shoulder  injury  as  there  was  no 
evidence  of  permanent  worsening  on  any  specific  period  of 
reserve service.   
 
The applicant also filed an LOD (which was completed as in line 
of duty) for vitreous detachment of his right eye.  This is not 
a  permanently  disqualifying  condition  either,  and  he  was  not 
boarded for this non-disqualifying condition as, again, no board 
is  warranted  unless  the  service  member  is  unable  to  perform 
duties of their office.  Finally, the applicant filed an LOD for 
a  cervical  herniated  disk  which  was  found  existed  prior  to 
service, service aggravated.  Each of these lines of duty cases 
were initiated on 29 June 2010 and completed on 25 August 2010, 
well  within  the  SAF/MR  measurable  time  requirements,  although, 
it appears, he may have asked the active duty military treatment 
staff  to  initiate  a  line  of  duty  sooner.    The  applicant 
requested line of duty completion on several chronic orthopedic 
conditions,  some  of  which  date  into  the  mid  1980s.    He  was 
granted  a  30-day  medical  hold  through  1 November 2010,  but  the 
applicant  provided  no  further  documentation  to  AFRC/SGP 
requesting continuation on medical hold.  
 
Given the chronic and longstanding nature of his complaints, the 
underlying issues remain his ability to overcome the presumption 
of  fitness.    It  would  not  be  appropriate  to  continue  medical 
hold given he was able to participate many years with those very 
same  conditions.    Medical  continuation  orders  also  require  a 
member to be in the process of a medical board.  Given his lack 
of  disability,  they  do  not  recommend  the  applicant  gain  relief 
from  the  Board  with  respect  to  his  request  for  medical 
retirement.    His  conditions  were  longstanding  and  he  remained 
qualified for military service throughout. 
 
The complete AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 

 

 
3 

AFMOA/SGHI recommends denial.  SGHI states there is no adequate 
evidence within the provided medical records and Command Man-Day 
Allocation  System  (CMAS)  to  establish  that  the  applicant  would 
have  been  eligible  for  Medical  Continuation  orders  during  the 
timeframe  requested.    For  that  reason,  they  are  unable  to 
recommend approval for the back pay portion of the request based 
upon  the  documentation  submitted  demonstrating  the  applicant’s 
ability to run marathons and complete overseas deployments. 
 
The complete AFMOA/SGHI evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
In a four-page response, the applicant references the AFMOA/SGHI 
evaluation  and  indicates  he  did  report  he  was  pain  free  on 
5 February  2010;  however,  his  pain  was  and  is  caused  by 
movement.  He does not believe he has to be in continuous pain 
to  have  a  significant  ailment.    The  remark  “already  running 
marathons, so no room to improve on exercise” was taken out of 
context.  He was not in training for a marathon during or after 
his  deployment.    He  made  the  statement  to  say  that  he  did  not 
need assistance regarding physical conditioning.  SGHI inferred 
that  this  one  statement  about  marathons  suggested  that  his 
conditions  were  not  to  a  degree  of  severity  that  would  render 
him  disqualified  for  continued  service.    There  was  no 
relationship  of  having  run  a  marathon  in  years  past  to  his 
current condition.   
 
SGHI failed to note his mobility restriction as well as medical 
personnel  remarks  regarding  his  shoulders  and  neck  in  the 
original package.  He does not deny that his shoulders suffered 
pain  as  far  back  as  1988  while  at  pararescue  indoctrination 
training.  His shoulders have had pain on and off throughout the 
years,  but  not  enough  to  be  disabling  as  long  as  he  took  care 
during physical conditioning and work.   
 
Regarding  the  medical  treatment  documentation  he  was  asked  to 
provide  after  his  medical  retirement  date  was  extended,  he 
explained  in  his  original  statement  that  losing  Tricare 
coverage, moving to the VA healthcare system, and suffering two 
heart attacks during that specific period did not allow him the 
time to meet the request.   
 
His request for early retirement based on an MEB is centered on 
the factors that surround the marking of a wrong block on the AF 
Form  469  and  that  his  shoulders  should  have  been  found  in  the 
line  of  duty  paired  with  four  other  debilitating  issues  not 
acknowledged  based  on  poor  administration  from  the  medical 
group.   
 
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 

 

 
4 

 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and 
recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary 
responsibility  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our 
conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an 
error or injustice.  We note the applicant’s contention that he 
had  mobility  restrictions  regarding  his  shoulders  and  neck; 
however, he did not provide evidence to overcome the presumption 
of  fitness  for  duty  in  spite  of  the  chronic  and  long-standing 
nature of his complaints.  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  issue(s) 
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  this  application 
BC-2012-01182  in  Executive  Session  on  14  November  2012,  under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 
 

 
 

 

 
5 

 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 February 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/SG, dated 15 May 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFMOA/SGHI, dated 2 July 2012. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 August 2012. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 September 2012. 
 
 
 
 
                                     
                                   Panel Chair 
 

 

 
6