RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00397
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: YES

	 

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Line of Duty (LOD) Determination documents be placed in her 
medical records in order for the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) 
process to continue.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1. She was diagnosed with a number of medical conditions while 
on active duty orders when her medical conditions occurred 
(2008-2010).  In accordance with the governing instructions, LOD 
actions should have been initiated by the medical facility; 
however, the medical documentation was never placed in her 
medical records.  Therefore, the MEB process was terminated.

2. She was placed on a world-wide mobility restriction without 
any work related restrictions.  Since she was on a profile for 
12 months, her medical code changed from “31” (injury/illness 
resolved within 31-365 days) to “37” (medical condition requires 
MEB processing).  MEB actions were initiated and she met with 
the counselor to receive her Disability Evaluation System (DES) 
counseling.  Later, she was informed by her base medical group 
that the MEB process could not be completed because LOD actions 
were never initiated for any of her disqualifying conditions.

3. In lieu of the MEB process continuing, a Worldwide Duty (WWD) 
evaluation was initiated, which confirmed the medical conditions 
that were identified in the Narrative Summary, see Exhibit A, 
Attachment 3.  The WWD evaluation disqualified her for continued 
military service under AFI 48-123, Medical Evaluations and 
Standards, and stated that she required processing through the 
DES.  However, her Medical Evaluation Report returned her to 
duty with the restriction that she could only perform Unit 
Training Assemblies (UTAs), ATs, and IDTs; however, because she 
is a Category E reservist she is only authorized to receive pay 
and points through MPA orders.

4. From June 2007 through June 2012, she averaged 224 days per 
year in man-days, IDTs, UTAs, and ATs.  Her current WWD 
restriction does not allow her to work any paid days, but yet 
documentation has returned her to duty with an Assignment 
Limitation Code (ALC) of “C3”.

In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy her AF 
Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, a copy of her Joint 
DoD/VA Disability Evaluation Pilot Referral, a memorandum from 
the 15th Medical Group, a copy of a memorandum from RMG/CC, and a 
copy of her Points History.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant retired from the Air Force Reserve in the grade of 
colonel 20 Jun 13.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C and F.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/SG recommends denial stating that regardless of a finding 
of In the Line of Duty (ILOD) for any of the applicant’s medical 
conditions, she was found fit and returned to duty.  All 
available documentation reveals that this was a correct medical 
finding and was consistent with all other similar cases.  
Further board action or disability processing is not authorized 
as she has been properly returned to duty.

None of the applicant’s medical conditions would have precluded 
her from performing her duties.  In fact, in her own statement, 
she clearly demonstrates that she does not overcome the 
presumption of fitness in that she performed numerous in-
garrison duties at the Pentagon through much of 2012.  A full 
MEB should not be performed.  Her duties as a staff officer 
would not be negatively impacted by her diabetes, sleep apnea or 
chronic orthopedic problems that interfered with her ability to 
perform the fitness assessment.  Nevertheless, the applicant’s 
medical conditions did not interfere with recreational 
activities as indicated in her medical records, nor her ability 
to perform her duties as a staff officer, demonstrated by her 
statement in the petition to the Board.  

The applicant correctly identifies that she was returned to duty 
with an ALC C-3 by AFRC/SGP on 14 Aug 12.  The ALC code was put 
into place to protect her from further degradation of her 
chronic orthopedic problems by inadvertent mobility or 
deployment.  

With regard to the applicant’s request to initiate a LOD 
determination, it is still unclear how her conditions are duty 
related.  Further, it is unclear from the attached documents as 
to what influence her duties in the Air Force either caused or 
permanently worsened these conditions beyond their natural 
progression of the disease process to find any of them ILOD.  

Finally, the applicant was appropriately returned to duty and 
should follow the instructions given to her by RMG/IRMS 
concerning possible LOD inquiry.  No injustice has occurred and 
no relief should be offered.

The complete AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She provides clarification and a rebuttal to the AFRC/SG 
advisory opinion stating that due to a year-long profile for her 
knee problems, the MEB was initiated by her PCM, not her.  The 
RMG/SG performed a Worldwide Duty Evaluation, which instructed 
her to initiate a LOD “if you believe the onset of your 
condition occurred during a period of military service, or was 
aggravated by military service.”  All of her conditions were 
verified by AFRC/SG as occurring while on extended active duty 
from 2008 through 2010.  Her request with the BCMR is to 
initiate the LOD paperwork IAW the governing instructions, given 
that all conditions will require continuous medical care.  
Consequently, formal or informal LOD actions should have been 
initiated.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________
_

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial stating a 
medical condition that is “disqualifying” for continued military 
service and which either results in a Medical Evaluation Board 
or a WWDE, is not automatically determinative that the condition 
is [will or should be] also found “unfitting” for continued 
military service by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB); and is 
also based upon a demonstrated ability to perform the duties of 
the individual’s office, grade, rank, and rating.  In this case, 
the applicant’s performance reports and her physician’s 
assessment likely resulted in the decision to return her to duty 
“fit” by a PEB with issuance of an ALC.  The applicant submitted 
a participation waiver; however, it was disapproved.  It is 
likely the applicant was confronted with the choice of an 
involuntary separation due to medical disqualification or a 
length of service retirement for which she was eligible to 
receive.

2. The applicant accurately states that she was not able to 
participate due to her status in the Reserve because the 
Readiness Management Group Individual Reserve Guide states, 
“IMAs participation for pay and points while PIRR participate in 
IDT and AT for points only or may earn pay and points for 
performing MPA tours (RPA tours not allowed for PIRR).”  Title 
10 U.S.C., Section 1214a, is intended to remedy situations when 
a Reservist is returned to duty fit by a PEB, but later subject 
to administrative discharge for the same condition for which 
they were found fit.  Such redress would result, at best, in a 
relook of the applicant’s fitness by a PEB and a new finding of 
“unfit” for conditions not eligible for processing as 
compensable through the military Disability Evaluation System 
(DES); even if the later found the condition was service 
incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  

3. The applicant has not supplied medical evidence to support 
her claim.  Had she submitted medical documentation, there could 
have been an independent analysis to find out the relationship 
between her medical conditions with her military service.  In 
addition, there is no evidence indicating she was treated for 
either of the conditions presented or that either condition 
interfered with her military service at the time of the alleged 
diagnosis that would indicate that an LOD Determination was 
erroneously not completed during a previous period of service.  
Further, even if the applicant’s medical conditions were 
determined service-incurred, this fact would not be 
determinative of the LOD status during a subsequent period of 
service.  According to the governing Department of Defense 
instructions, “Any medical condition incurred or aggravated 
during one period active service or authorized training in any 
of the Armed Forces that recurs, is aggravated, or otherwise 
causes the member to be unfit, should be considered incurred in 
the line of duty, provided the origin of such impairment or its 
current state is not due to the member’s misconduct or willful 
negligence, or progresses to unfitness as a result of interning 
events when the member was not in a duty status.”  The applicant 
has not provided any documentation that indicates her medical 
conditions progressed to unfitness while serving in a duty 
status.

4. The Medical Consultant acknowledges the applicant’s implicit 
desire to have her medical conditions found ILOD and to proceed 
with an MEB; however, a preponderance of the evidence shows that 
this would not have been the case, even if her conditions were 
found ILOD.  

5. Although the applicant’s point credit summary indicates that 
she may have collectively completed 8 years of active service, 
which would otherwise qualify her for DES processing under 10 
U.S.C., 1207a, even if her conditions existed prior to service, 
it appears that she was not serving a requisite period of active 
service [31 days or more entitled to basic pay] at the time her 
medical conditions became disqualifying [or unfitting] for 
application of this provision of the law; particularly in the 
context that she was found “fit” and returned to duty.

6. Finally, it is noted that the DVA operating under Title 38 
U.S.C., may independently establish service connection for her 
medical conditions based upon a prior period of service [if 
properly documented], but without regard to her fitness to 
serve, eligibility for a MEB processing, duty-status at the time 
of medical disqualification, or the reason for her release from 
military service.

The BCMR Medical Consultant complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant on 16 Dec 13 for review and comment within 30 
days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

________________________________________________________________
_

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.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
submission, we find no evidence of an error in this case and we 
are not persuaded by her assertions, that she has been the 
victim of an injustice.  Neither does the record reveal nor has 
the applicant provided evidence that would lead us to believe 
her medical conditions should have been processed through the 
Disability Evaluation System.  Therefore, we agree with the 
assessment of the Air Force Reserve Command Surgeon and the BCMR 
Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale expressed as the 
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain 
her burden that she has suffered either an error or an 
injustice.  Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought.  

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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-00397 in Executive Session on 24 Sep 13 and 17 
Jan 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/SG, dated 28 Feb 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Mar 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Mar 13. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 25 Nov 13.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 16 Dec 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair











8