RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05257
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he was continued on active 
duty for medical continuation (MEDCON) for the period of 27 Nov 
10 to 24 Apr 12.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

According to Air Force Reserve Command Instruction (ARCI) 36-
3004, paragraph 1.3, his active duty orders should have been 
extended pending a resolution of his line of duty (LOD) medical 
condition.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant currently serves in the Air Force Reserve in the 
grade of technical sergeant (E-6).

The applicant was involuntarily ordered to active duty under 
Title 10, United States Code, Section 12302 (Partial 
Mobilization) in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM for the 
period of 25 Aug 10 to 27 Nov 10.

On 18 Oct 10, the applicant was evaluated by the Air Force 
medical facility at his deployed location for treatment of his 
right shoulder injury he incurred on 27 Sep 10. 

On 5 Nov 10, an Informal LOD Determination was initiated on the 
applicant to determine whether or not his 27 Sep 10 injury was 
service connected.  On 29 Dec 10, his injury was found to be in 
the LOD and service connection was established.

In accordance with Air Force Instruction 48-123, Medical 
Examination and Standards, an Airman may be eligible for MEDCON 
orders when an injury, illness, or disease is incurred or 
aggravated while serving on orders and that condition renders 
the Airman unable to perform military duties.  MEDCON 
eligibility requires a LOD determination and a finding by a 
credentialed military health provider that the condition 
requires treatment and renders the Airman unable to meet 
retention or mobility standards in accordance with Air Force 
Instructions.

On 27 Nov 10, the applicant’s orders expired and he was released 
from active duty.

On 30 Mar 11, according to medical records provided by the 
applicant, he underwent arthroscopy surgery on his left 
shoulder.

On 16 Apr 12, according to medical documentation provided by the 
applicant, he underwent an additional surgery on his left 
shoulder due to continued complications.

On 26 Jun 12, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) granted 
the applicant service connection for his shoulder injury with a 
compensable rating of 20 percent, effective 28 Nov 10.  

According to the applicant’s point credit accounting report 
summary (PCARS), dated 22 Oct 13, the applicant performed a 
variety of military duty during the period following his release 
from active duty until his surgery on 30 Mar 11, and during the 
period leading up to his second surgery on 16 Apr 12.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFMOA/SGHI recommends denial, indicating the applicant’s initial 
request for MEDCON orders ended due to him failing to provide 
further documentation for his medical condition.  Although there 
is no evidence of a request for MEDCON orders in the system, the 
applicant provided a congressional response that indicates AFMOA 
denied a request on 18 Nov 10.  His treatment plan was not 
submitted until six days after his orders ended.  The 
applicant’s AF Form 422 was not signed and only reflected duty 
restrictions.  His second MEDCON request ended due to the 
applicant not providing a treatment plan and he was not in the 
Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES).  Additionally, 
the applicant may have been receiving VA compensation during the 
time he was on MEDCON orders.  Furthermore, healthcare was 
available through TRICARE, Transitional Assistance Management 
Program (TAMP) for 180 days post-deployment, through VA medical 
facilities and Military Medical Support Office (MMSO).  Service 
members do not have to be on orders to receive care from these 
entities.
A complete copy of the AFMOA/SGHI evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPFA recommends denial, indicating the applicant’s Duty 
Limiting Condition (DLC) did not meet MEDCON criteria as 
specified in the SAF/MR MEDCON memorandum, which indicates 
Airman are eligible for MEDCON orders when an injury, illness, 
or disease is incurred or aggravated while serving on orders and 
that condition renders the Airman unable to perform military 
duties.  MEDCON eligibility requires a LOD determination and a 
finding by a credentialed military health care provider that the 
Airman has an unresolved health condition requiring treatment 
and renders the Airman unable to meet retention or mobility 
standards.  The policy states a DLC must be coded as mobility 
restrictions not just duty restrictions.  The completed DLC does 
not infer any error and/or delay on the member or government; it 
provides the military provider’s professional medical opinion at 
that time and date.  Therefore, they concur with the 
recommendation of AFMOA/SGHI to deny the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant indicates that he submitted his first request for 
MEDCON orders to his unit prior to the termination of his 
deployment and was informed approximately 2-3 months later that 
his request was denied due to his profile not supporting the 
request.  He asserts that his unit informed him that his profile 
should have indicated that he was “Not Worldwide Qualified” 
(NWWQ).  On 23 Feb 11, he submitted a second request after being 
informed of the first denial.  He included a Standard Form 600, 
Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 22 Jan 11, 
indicating he was placed on a profile that listed him as being 
NWWQ with a 90 day expiration.  He also asserts that his unit 
informed him, that since his MEDCON orders were denied, he would 
need to make his necessary medical appointments and the unit 
would provide him orders to attend those appointments.  He also 
indicates that he did provide the proper documentation to his 
unit for his first MEDCON request but the unit failed to process 
it properly.  It is the responsibility of the unit to ensure 
there are no discrepancies with the paperwork.  As for his 
second request ending due to no treatment plan provided, the 
treatment plan is noted as attempting therapy as indicated on 
the SF 600, dated 23 Jul 11.  The IDES was initiated, but by the 
late fall of 2011, his pain was increasing so he decided to get 
a second opinion that resulted in him receiving additional 
surgery on 16 Apr 12.  He was informed by the Medical Evaluation 
Board (MEB) that the MEB process had placed him on hold pending 
the outcome of his second surgery and therapy to determine if 
his condition was stable.  He still believes that he should have 
been continued on orders as his injury was more serious than 
just a strain.
Lastly, he asserts that the unit is usually considered the 
experts in processing these types of requests and it is not 
normally questioned on how or why they do something.  He 
provided documentation that clearly states he was restricted to 
light duty and he was not deployable.  Therefore, he should have 
been continued on MEDCON orders.  He requests that the Board 
restore his lost pay, time in service, and retirement points to 
correct this injustice, minus the pay he received while having 
the surgeries and on convalescence leave.

A complete copy of the Applicant’s response is at 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 an 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 (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice.  The evidence presented does not indicate that the 
applicant’s medical condition rendered him unable to perform 
military duties.  While the applicant argues that he was not 
world-wide qualified (WWQ), said fact does not equate to a 
finding that he was unfit to perform the duties of his office or 
grade.  Furthermore, in view of the fact the applicant has not 
provided any profiles or duty limiting condition reports to 
evaluate in this regard, we are not convinced that he was unfit 
for the duties of his office or grade and therefore entitled to 
retention on MEDCON orders for the requested period. 
Additionally, the fact the applicant performed a variety of 
military duties during the requested period, as evidenced by his 
point credit accounting report summary (PCARS), undermines his 
argument that he was unfit to perform his military duties. 
Therefore, 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 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-2012-05257 in Executive Session on 31 Oct 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                , Panel Chair
	                , Member
	                , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Nov 12, w/atchs.
	 Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	 Exhibit C.  Letter, AFMOA/SGHI, dated 21 May 13.
	 Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPFA, dated 24 Jul 13.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Aug 13.  
	 Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Aug 13, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair




5