RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03639 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His record be corrected to show that he was not discharged 
from active duty on 2 Mar 12 but was continued on active duty 
until 26 Jul 12; 

 

2. He be paid all back pay, allowances, and benefits to which 
he would have been entitled from 2 Mar 12 to 26 Jul 12; 

 

3. He be paid for his out-of-pocket dental expenses; 

 

4. His conditions were In the Line of Duty (INLOD); 

 

5. His retirement date and retirement points be updated 
accordingly. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In Sep 10, he was serving on Extended Active Duty (EAD) with US 
Central Command (CENTCOM), and reported severe pain in his 
#19 tooth, a molar. However, it was determined to have Existed 
Prior to Service – Not Applicable (EPTS-N/A). Had his dental 
condition been properly determined he would not have incurred an 
expense totaling $600.00. 

 

Between 2011 and 2012, he experienced right knee pain which 
ultimately required surgery. After surgery, his medical 
provider indicated that he required a full eight weeks of 
convalescent leave and therapy before he would be able to 
fulfill his job requirements. Even though the Air Force Reserve 
Command’s (AFRC) determined that his injury was EPTS – Service 
Aggravated (EPTS-SA), he should have remained on active duty 
until his medical condition was resolved. 

 

Based on the governing law, Department of Defense (DOD) and Air 
Force policy, the response to his Member of Congress which 
indicated that he was not entitled to MEDCON orders or 
incapacitation pay was incorrect, because he should have been 
entitled to one or the other due to his condition. 

 


Since AFRC did not finalize his LOD determination until 
5 Jul 12, he should still be entitled to MEDCON orders until his 
eight weeks of convalescent leave was completed, 26 Jul 12. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant, while serving as a colonel with the Air Force 
Reserve, was recalled on EAD to support operations at US CENTCOM 
from 2 Apr 10 to 1 Sep 10. 

 

On 13 Mar 11, the applicant was recalled on EAD in support of 
Operation ENDURING FREEDOM/NEW DAWN. He continued supporting 
contingency operations until his demobilization, on 2 Mar 12. 

 

On 1 Jun 12, the applicant was transferred to the Retired 
Reserve and placed on the USAF Reserve Retired List, awaiting 
pay at age 60. He was credited with 30 years of satisfactory 
Federal service. 

 

On 18 Jun 12, the Vice Commander, Air Force Reserve Command 
(AFRC/CV) approved the applicant’s LOD determination for a 
finding of EPTS-SA. 

 

On 6 Jul 12, the applicant was notified of the decision by the 
AFRC/CV. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/A1K did not provide a recommendation. They noted, however, 
the requested corrections are not within the purview of the 
authority for the programs managed by the AFRC/A1K staff. 
Instead, the concerns all appear to be medically related and as 
such, possibly could be more appropriately addressed by a 
medical authoritative source. The rationale for the AFRC/AlK’s 
position on this matter is based in large part, on their 
inability to determine where the applicant has solicited a 
stated desire to make an application for Incapacitation Pay 
(INCAP PAY). As an aside, the following is provided relative to 
the applicant's circumstance. Excerpt from AFRCI 36-3004, Incapacitation Pay and Management of Reservist Continued on 
Active Duty Orders, paragraph 1.4." Elect To Leave Active Duty, 
states that members on orders for 31 days or more, who would 
otherwise be retained on orders due to an incapacitation, but 
who elect to leave active duty, shall be entitled to 
incapacitation pay upon the end of the orders and medical 
treatment for the line of duty medical condition only in 
military treatment facilities, according to Section 1074 of 


Title 10 U.S.C (reference (c))." Again, the AlK staff is unable 
to determine where the applicant has indicated he is electing to 
be released from an active duty status and wishes to apply for 
INCAP PAY. 

 

The complete AFRC/A1P evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit B. 

 

AFMOA/SGH1 recommends denial, stating, in part, that they are 
unable to advise him on back payment of his medical expenses 
incurred for his dental LOD condition. The applicant would not 
have been eligible for MEDCON for this condition. Additionally, 
his request for his LOD's to be changed and his retirement date 
and points to be updated accordingly, is not in the authority of 
this office. However, if the decision is to grant the relief 
sought, the records should be corrected to show he was placed on 
active duty, with full entitlements from 31 May 12 to 
26 Jul 12 during his surgical procedure and recovery, which is 
the only time he would have been eligible for MEDCON had he not 
been retired. 

 

The applicant was on continuous active duty orders from 
6 Apr 10 through 30 Sep 10 and again from 13 Mar 11 through 
2 Mar 12. Records submitted indicate he was seen for a dental 
problem on 28 Sep 10 at a Military Treatment Facility (MTF). He 
had follow-up appointments; however, there is no further 
documentation available, to indicate further treatment. During 
his routine Physical Health Assessment (PHA), on 23 Jan 12, he 
told the provider of his musculoskeletal condition. On 2 Feb 
12, he reported to the Langley AFB MTF Emergency Room for this 
problem and radiological tests were performed, no significant 
findings were noted. There is no indication that either his 
dental or knee conditions caused him to terminate his tour of 
duty ear1y. 

 

There is no evidence of a Command Man-Day Allocation System 
(CMAS) request for MEDCON during any time the applicant was on 
AD orders or prior to his retirement date of 1 Jun 12. This 
does not indicate a CMAS was not requested by him; only that one 
cannot be found. Current guidance for MEDCON at the time in 
question indicates that an interim or completed LOD 
determination with an accompanying AF Form 469 does not in and 
of itself result in approval of MEDCOM orders. The level of 
severity of the injury, illness or disease must be taken into 
consideration by the credentialed military health care provider 
and whether the member is determined unable to perform military 
duties. There is no evidence that either condition caused the 
applicant to not be able to perform military duties until his 
surgical date 31 May 12. The MEDCON Division has no authority 
to delay or change an applicant’s Mandatory Separation Date 
(MSD) or order the applicant to remain on AD. This office has 
no purview of the applicants who become ill or injured and 
return from their deployments, on their scheduled return date, 
unless a CMAS request for MEDCON is made. As stated previously 


there is no indication that was accomplished, other than the 
note on the SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, 
enclosure number 19, page 4, stating the request was sent to 
AFRC/SGP and AFMOA. If it was declined by HQ AFRC/SGP this 
office would not have received the actual CMAS request. 

 

The complete AFMOA/SGH1 evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s counsel noted his disagreement with the advisory 
opinions. In addition, A1K does not provide a recommendation 
but notes that INCAP is more appropriate rather than MEDCON. 

 

Further, AFMOA did not utilize the applicable governing law and 
directives in regard to the applicant’s request for MEDCON 
orders. The law does not require a member to go through CMAS to 
qualify for MEDCON and believes the applicant should have been 
continued on active duty. 

 

In addition, the applicant requested his application be amended 
to include protection under the sanctuary provision; however, he 
and counsel were advised that this constituted a new request and 
through counsel, he agreed to submit a new application. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, 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 timely filed. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting 
corrective action to entitle the applicant to be paid out-of-
pocket dental expenses or that his dental condition was incurred 
ILOD. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in 
judging the merits of the case; however, the evidence reflects 
that the applicant’s dental condition was EPTS/LOD Not 
Applicable. While we note the applicant contends that he should 
have been paid for his dental expenses he incurred as a result 
of a condition reportedly that occurred while on active duty for 
more than 30 days, he has not provided sufficient documentation 
to show this condition was not EPTS or that it prevented him 
from performing his military duties. Without evidence showing 
the applicant was unable to perform his military duties, we do 


not find a sufficient basis to substantiate that he has been the 
victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this portion of the 
application. 

 

4. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has 
been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or 
injustice warranting corrective action regarding his request for 
MEDCON from 3 Mar – 26 Jul 12. While we note the recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility to deny the 
applicant’s request, the evidence reflects the applicant was 
treated for a medical condition in Dec 11 and, contrary to the 
AF Form 348, Informal Line of Duty Determination, dated Mar 12, 
wherein the military medical provider recommended the applicant 
be retained on active duty; he was transferred to Reserve 
Retired list. Moreover, we note that the LOD determination was 
not made until after he had retired. In view of the foregoing, 
we believe the applicant should have been placed on MEDCON 
orders for the period 2 Mar 12 to 26 Jul 12. Accordingly, in 
the interest of equity and justice, we recommend his 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 issue(s) 
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, by 
competent authority, he was not released from active duty on 
2 Mar 12, but on that date was continued on active duty until 
26 Jul 12 at which time he was discharged and transferred to the 
Retired Reserve on 27 Jul 12. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03639 in Executive Session on 11 Jun 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 


All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to BC-2012-03639 was 
considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jul 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 25 Jan 13, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFMOA/SGHI, dated 1 Feb 13, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s counsel, dated 12 Mar 13, 

 w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Vice Chair