RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02147 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be credited with enough retirement points to qualify for 
an Air Force Reserve retirement. 

 

2. He be placed on medical continuation (MEDCON) orders from 
Feb 10 until 29 Aug 12 (date medically retired). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He should have been placed on orders when his medical evaluation 
board (MEB) started. However, at that time he was placed in a 
no point/no pay status instead of active duty orders. 

 

When he was placed in a non-participation status he was just six 
points shy of obtaining 19 years of satisfactory Federal service 
towards a Reserve retirement. 

 

His inability to obtain 20 years of satisfactory service toward 
retirement makes him ineligible for Concurrent Retirement 
Disability Pay (CRDP). He will be losing this benefit because 
someone at his command did not do their job. He filed three 
congressional inquiries before he was finally placed on orders 
as he should have been when his MEB started. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his 
AFRC IMT 348, Informal Line of Duty (LOD) Determination, signed 
and dated 24 Mar 06 and response to his congressional inquiry, 
dated 27 Apr 12. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant, a former member of the Air Force Reserve, served 
on active duty in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM/NOBLE 
EAGLE from 25 May 05 – 8 Apr 07. 

 

Based on medical documentation, the applicant was diagnosed with 
a depressive disorder, in 2005, while still in theater. An 
Informal LOD, on 24 Mar 06, determined the applicant’s condition 
Existed Prior to Service-Service Aggravated (EPTS-SA). 

 

In Nov 11, an MEB diagnosed the applicant with major depressive 
disorder and referred his case to the Informal Physical 


Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 6 Jan 12, the IPEB diagnosed the 
applicant with major depressive disorder and as a part of a 
pilot joint venture program, his case was referred to the DVA 
for review. On 2 May 12, the DVA rated the applicant with a 
combined rating of 90 percent, 50 percent for major depressive 
disorder. On 19 Jun 12, the IPEB diagnosed the applicant with 
major depressive disorder, with a compensable disability rating 
of 50 percent. On 11 Jul 12, the applicant agreed with the 
IPEB’s findings. On 17 Jul 12, the Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Council directed the applicant be permanently 
disability retired with a compensable disability rating of 
50 percent. 

 

On 28 Aug 12, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
permanently retired for disability with a compensable disability 
rating of 50 percent. He completed 7 years and 3 days of active 
service for retirement, with 18 years of satisfactory Federal 
service, totaling 23 years, 1 month, and 2 days of service for 
pay. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/A1K recommends denial, stating, in part, that in accordance 
with the governing DoD directive, a Reserve component member on 
active duty under a call or order to active duty specifying a 
period of 31 days or more, who incurs or aggravates an injury, 
illness, or disease in the line of duty shall with the member' s 
consent, be continued on active duty upon the expiration of call 
or order to active duty until the member is determined fit for 
duty or the member is separated or returned as a result of a 
Disability Evaluation System (DES) determination. 

 

It does not appear the applicant was serving on an active duty 
order when the purported injury occurred that was determined to 
be in the line of duty (ILOD), i.e., confirmation of whether or 
not the LOD that was determined to be ILOD, is in fact the LOD 
that could have placed/or could be used to continue the member 
on an active duty order, as requested by the applicant, must be 
determined by the AFRC/SG staff or some other authoritative 
medical source. 

 

Absent a medical determination from an authoritative medical 
source validating the applicant’s medical condition warranted 
him being placed on MEDCON orders due to a specified medical 
condition, disapproval is recommended. The recommended 
disapproval encompasses the member's request that his number of 
good years of service be adjusted as well, based on the request 
for MEDCON orders. 

 

The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 3 Oct 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends approval, noting the 
applicant’s record should be amended to reflect, as a minimum, 
the applicant was placed on active duty orders for pay and 
points on 5 Mar 11 and remained so until his medical retirement 
effective 29 Aug 12. 

 

In addition, the BCMR Medical Consultant notes, the applicant's 
MEB narrative summary, typed on 12 Jan 11, reflects a diagnosis 
of a major depressive disorder as far back as 2005, for which he 
was prescribed antidepressants; but discontinued their use due 
to undesirable side effects. The record indicates that he 
subsequently received a MEB in 2007, for which he reportedly 
"appealed and was returned to duty." As noted above, a 
subsequent presumed commander-directed mental health evaluation 
was conducted following a 2009 incident ["communicating a 
terrorist threat"], for which the applicant was, again, 
diagnosed with major depressive disorder. It should be noted 
the record indicates the applicant's condition was determined to 
be "in partial" followed by "full remission with treatment" at 
that time; which is a likely reason the MEB was not pursued at 
that juncture, along with the provider's opinion that he would 
be "fit as long as he agrees to stay in mental health 
treatment." There are also no AF Form 422, Physical Profile 
restrictions, or AF Form 469, Duty-Limiting Condition Reports, 
imposed or supplied for calendar years (CYs) 2008 through 2010, 
although the applicant has taken the implicit position he should 
have been put on or sustained on active duty orders since in 
Feb 10. 

 

Even though comments in the applicant's MEB narrative summary, 
dated 12 Jan 11, makes reference to a mental health evaluation 
for a MEB on 10 Dec 10, the subsequent delays in timely 
completion of the MEB action [most of CY 2011] is not explained 
in the record, thereby requiring the need for two addendum 
updates to the original MEB narrative summary, in Jul 11 and 
again in Oct 11, with the actual convening of the MEB not until 
Nov 11. The Medical Consultant pauses at this juncture to note 
that time standards for case processing, has to be in accordance 
with (IAW) Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, and the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2008. 

 

It is implicit that the recurrence or exacerbation of the 
applicant's major depressive disorder that resulted in his MEB 
held in 2011, which was previously found ILOD in 2005, was also 
found in line of duty, although a new LOD document is not 
supplied to reflect this. 

 


The Medical Consultant considered the applicant's implicit 
request for receiving back-dated orders from Feb 10, in the 
effort to achieve sufficient point credits to reach 
20 satisfactory years of service. However, although the 
applicant may have received periodic treatment throughout this 
period, there is insufficient evidence of record to indicate 
that his ability to continue to perform his military duties 
rendered him non-worldwide qualified since Feb 10. Indeed, the 
only supplied AF Form 469 reflecting the applicant was 
determined non-worldwide qualified and projected for DES 
processing was initiated on 16 May 11, although the actual MEB 
did not take place until 3 Nov 11. The unanswered question is 
whether there is shared culpability for any apparent delays in 
the timely processing of the applicant's case through the DES; 
noting the history of his successful appeal to return to duty in 
2007 for the same condition, with the stated objective in 
current review to achieve enough time in service to reach 
20 satisfactory years of service. 

 

The Medical Consultant directs attention to an interpretation of 
the term "MEDCON" which, in his opinion, presumes an individual 
is already or "while serving" on orders and, thus, continued on 
[or not released from] those orders. In the case under review, 
there is no evidence to reflect the applicant was on orders at 
the time his inability to perform military duties was made, nor 
at any subsequent milestone within the DES, to include the date 
of dictation of the MEB narrative summary and the date of 
issuance of the AF Form 469. However, based upon the 
recommendation of the Chief, Congressional Inquiry Division, 
Office of Legislative Liaison, the Medical Consultant recommends 
placement of the applicant on active duty orders effective 
5 Mar 11, the date that the PEBLO first counseled him on the DES 
process. While an error may be limited to the date of orders 
recommended by the Congressional Liaison, an earlier date may be 
justified, as a matter of injustice to the applicant, noting the 
unexplained delays [with no evidence of significant change in 
clinical status in the interim] in processing the applicant's 
case from the time of his initial MEB narrative summary to the 
date the case file was received by the PEB; in violation of the 
timeline standards established by the DoD. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting 
partial corrective action. Notwithstanding the recommendations 
of the Air Force Reserve office of primary responsibility, we 


are inclined to agree with the analysis of the BCMR Medical 
Consultant who finds that there may have been a possible 
injustice to the applicant by the untimely completion of his MEB 
which does not appear to be in compliance with DoD policy and 
law. As alluded to by the BCMR Medical Consultant, taking a 
retrospective look at a case can pose certain risks by 
introducing a different set of suggested conclusions. However, 
a thorough analysis by the BCMR Medical Consultant raises doubt 
as to whether there was shared culpability between the applicant 
and the Air Force. Based on the substantial evidence provided 
by the applicant, including the congressional response, it 
appears he should have been afforded MEDCON orders; the only 
question would be the start date of the orders. As such, we 
agree with the Medical Consultant’s recommendation to place the 
applicant on active duty orders effective 5 Mar 11. We believe 
this approach presents the best option for a correct, yet fair 
and equitable determination in the applicant’s case. Since this 
is the date he was formally briefed by the PEBLO of his options 
for a disability separation. Therefore, in the interest of 
justice, we recommend the applicant’s record be corrected as 
indicated below. 

 

4. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice in regards to 
the applicant’s request for credit for 20 years of satisfactory 
service towards retirement. The applicant’s request is duly 
noted; however, we did not find the evidence provided 
substantial enough to override the opinions and recommendations 
from the Air Force Reserve OPR and the BCMR Medical Consultant 
that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to favorably consider this portion of the application. 

 

5. 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 involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was 
recalled to extended active duty from 5 Mar 11 to 28 Aug 12. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-02147 in Executive Session on 28 Mar 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 May 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 


 Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 26 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 14 Feb 13, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Feb 13. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair