RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02128

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

1.	Her retirement status be changed from Temporary retired to 
Permanent Medical Retirement.

2.	Her retirement pay be adjusted from 1 May 2010 to present 
based on her medical retirement percentage.

3.	She be allowed to add her spouse to her Survivor Benefit Plan 
(WITHDRAWN).

4.	She be allowed to apply for Veteran’s Group Life Insurance.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a 13-page statement, the applicant states she was forced to 
retire in 2010.  She was injured and unable to perform her 
duties without increasing her pain or causing further injury.  
In 2009, she was advised that she had a year to resolve her 
medical conditions or she would be considered for a Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB).

She was secretly removed from medical profile in December 2009 
and the medical unit failed to inform her.  She was notified of 
the change in the profile by her commander in March 2010.  They 
did this so that she could not pursue a complaint with the 
Inspector General (IG) for discrimination and falsifying medical 
records.  In the end, the IG refused to help her.  She also made 
contact with the base legal office; they also would not help 
her.

She is currently 90 percent disabled.  She was served a severe 
injustice and requests her records be corrected accordingly.  
She understands the AF rating system is different from the 
Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA); however, she asks the 
Boards consideration that several of her conditions are chronic 
and negatively impact other conditions.

In support of this appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, medical records, letters of support AFI 36-3212, 
Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and Separation and 
other supporting documentation.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Air National Guard who 
retired on 1 May 2010.

On 28 February 2014, by e-mail, the applicant indicated she did 
not want to pay the back premiums in order to effect her new SBP 
election and requested to withdraw that portion of her request 
(Exhibit G). 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are 
contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant which is 
listed at Exhibit C and D.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/SGPA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change 
her retirement to a medical retirement and any back pay 
associated with that request.  SGPA recommends the applicant be 
allowed to apply for VGLI.

The applicant contends she was secretly removed from her Duty 
Limiting Condition Report in December 2009.  She was a no show 
for her medical appointment in December 2009.  After reviewing 
her medical records, a military medical provider determined 
there was insufficient documentation to support her remaining in 
a duty limiting status as would be documented on the AF Form 
469.  The applicant submitted documentation from February 2010 
whereas her restriction was no running.  Although there was 
insufficient documentation to support maintaining a Duty 
Limiting Report, the applicant was restricted from completing 
the run portion of her fitness assessment.  In spite of 
repeatedly completing and submitting medical release forms, no 
medical documentation was submitted from civilian medical 
providers.  With no supporting documentation, the applicant was 
not placed back in a duty limiting condition status.  The 
applicant reported numerous medical conditions, but appeared to 
have met retention and mobility standards in accordance with AFI 
48-123.  The applicant requested and was transferred to the USAF 
Retired Reserve List on 1 May 2010. 

The complete SGPA evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of changing the 
applicant’s retirement to a medical retirement.

The applicant reports that she completed an annual retention 
interview by her home station while deployed.  She was advised 
that she must pass her fitness assessment upon her return and 
prior to April 2009, noting her term of service expired in May 
2009.  Upon return from the deployment, her medical conditions 
worsened or deteriorated resulting in a Duty Limiting Condition 
Report.  She was also given the impression that if her 
conditions did not improve within one year, she would require an 
MEB.  Prior to the one-year period, a senior military physician, 
implicitly and maliciously, changed her profile restrictions and 
returned her to duty with the advice to lose weight and quit 
smoking.  She also states she gained 20 pounds which she 
attributed in part, to the diagnosis of hypothyroidism. 

Addressing the applicant’s petition for a medical retirement, 
the military Disability Evaluation System (DES) was established 
to maintain a fit and vital fighting force.  By law, the DES can 
only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or 
injuries which specifically render a member unfit for continued 
active service and were the cause for career termination, and 
then only to the degree of impairment present at the time of 
separation and not based on future occurrences.  Department of 
Defense Instruction 1332.32, Physical Disability Evaluation, 
Enclosure 3, Part 3, Standards for Determining Unfitness Due to 
Physical Disability or Medical Disqualification, E.3.P3.2.1, 
reads “A service member shall be considered unfit when the 
evidence establishes that a member, due to physical disability, 
is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, 
grade, rank or rating, to include duties during a remaining 
period of Reserve obligation.”

In the case under review, it could not be established that the 
applicant was unable to reasonably perform her military duties, 
as a Security Forces Shift leader, as would reflect on a 
Physical Profile Restriction of sufficient level, for example 
“L4T profile, and duration sustained 12 months or more to 
trigger an MEB and further processing under the Physical 
Evaluation Board (PEB).”  Moreover, under the paragraph entitled 
Adequate Performance Until Referral, if the evidence establishes 
the member was referred for physical evaluation, the member may 
be considered fit for duty even though the medical evidence 
indicates questionable physical ability to continue to perform 
duty.  Based upon the service medical evidence, the Medical 
Consultant found no medical condition that established a cause 
and effect relationship with the termination of the applicant’s 
military service, particularly in the context of her medical 
clearance to participate in the Fitness Assessment program.  

On the other hand, the DVA operates under Title 38 and is 
authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition with 
nexus to military service, without regard to its demonstrated or 
proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to 
serve, or narrative reason for release from military service.  
This is the reason individuals can be found fit for release from 
military service for one reason and yet receive compensation 
ratings from the DVA for service-connected, but not military 
unfitting conditions.  The DVA is also empowered to conduct 
periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the 
disability rating awards as the level of impairment from a given 
service connected medical condition my vary, improve or worsen, 
over the lifetime of the veteran.

The Medical Consultant agrees that the failure to include the 
applicant early in the notification process was inappropriate.  
After reviewing the email traffic between the applicant and her 
supervisor, there appears to be some implicit suspicion on the 
part of the military physician of the applicant’s true 
capabilities or level of impairment, noting the emphasis he 
placed upon her ability to deploy a year earlier without, in his 
opinion, any significant changes in health status.

The Medical Consultant notes that the ANG/SGPA advisory 
recommends denial of the applicant’s request stating there was 
no medical documentation received from the applicant’s civilian 
providers; and thus, the applicant was not placed back into 
limiting conditions status.  To the contrary, two of the 
applicant’s civilian physicians provided medical assessments, 
both dated 31 March 2010, regarding their opinions of the impact 
of her medical conditions on deployment.  It is not known if 
SGPA had access to the records provided in this review.  Given 
the fact that this review was requested by the medical 
organization on 15 March 2010 and completed on 31 March 2010, 
the timely reply seems to have landed on deaf ears.  The facts 
indicate a disagreement with the fitness assessment of the 
civilian physicians, noting tools available to Service SG’s to 
retain individuals under and assignment limiting code, if 
otherwise eligible for retention and adequately performing the 
mission.

The Medical Consultant reviewed the applicant’s case in earnest 
search of error or injustice.  While there appears to be some 
element of clandestine behavior on the part of the senior 
medical provider, there also appears to be some awareness by all 
that the applicant had been otherwise able to perform her 
military duties and would likely have been allowed to reenlist, 
but not for her fitness failure.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at 
Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 27 August 2013 and 3 September 2013 for review and 
comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office (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 injustice with regard 
to the applicant’s request for a medical retirement and 
accompanying back pay and allowances.  After a thorough review 
of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete 
submission, we are not persuaded the applicant is entitled to 
the relief she seeks.  We took note of the applicant’s 
contention that she was secretly removed from her medical 
profile.  While the BCMR Medical Consultant noted clandestine 
behavior by a senior medical provider, we agree there was no 
medical condition that established a cause and effect 
relationship with the termination of the applicant’s military 
service.  The applicant was able to perform her military duties.  
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the 
BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant is not entitled to a medical 
retirement.  With regard to the applicant’s request to add her 
spouse to her SBP plan, we note that the applicant has indicated 
by e-mail correspondence, that she wishes to withdraw this 
portion of her request.  Therefore, the Board will not address 
this issue.

4.  Notwithstanding the above determination, we believe some 
relief is warranted.  We note NGB/SGPA’s recommendation that the 
applicant should have the opportunity to apply for VGLI.  We 
agree.  After a thorough review of the documentation submitted, 
we find she was not provided the information necessary to make 
an informed decision regarding her VGLI.  Accordingly, we 
recommend the applicant’s record be corrected as indicated 
below.

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 issues 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 on 
23 April 2010, she executed SGLI Form 8714, Application for 
Veteran’s Group Life Insurance (VGLI), effective 1 May 2010.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-02128 in Executive Session on 28 January 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 29 Apr 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/SGPA, dtd 7 Jun 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 26 Aug 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, 27 Aug 13.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Sep 13.
    Exhibit G.  E-mail from Applicant, dated 28 Feb 14.