RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01833

					COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED: YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Military Personnel Appropriation (MPA) order number D5BAF9 rendered for the period 2 Nov 12 through 17 Mar 13 be extended through completion of his Line of Duty (LOD) determination and the medical evaluation board (MEB) process.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was diagnosed with a medical condition while serving on active duty orders which should have resulting in his remaining on orders through completion of the MEB process.  He was on MPA orders when he initially sought treatment for symptoms which were ultimately diagnosed as lupus, but he was released from active duty.  He was later serving under RPA orders when his medical condition worsened.  His condition was determined to be “existed prior to service—service aggravated” (EPTS-SA).  His orders were initially extended for medical continuation (MEDCON) for two months, but were prematurely terminated due to Air Force Reserve Command’s (AFRC) lack of funding. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served in the Air Force Reserve during the period of time in question. 

According to the documents submitted by the applicant: 

	a.  Under MPA Reserve Order No D5BAF9, dated 25 Oct 12, the applicant was ordered to active duty during the period 2 Nov 12 through 29 Jun 13.  

	b.  On 31 Jan 13, the applicant reported to medical authorities with symptoms with uncertain etiology.  

	c.  On 14 Mar 13, the final release date on Order D5BAF9 was amended from 29 Jun 13 to 17 Mar 13.  The reason for the amendment was “Member requires curtailment of orders due to civilian job requirements.”  

	d.  The applicant served on active duty again during the period 15 Jul 13 through 30 Aug 13.  During this period he became very sick, and after his release he was diagnosed with lupus. 

      e.  On 13 Jan 14, the applicant received an AF Form 348, Line of Duty Determination, reflecting a final decision of   EPTS-SA for lupus, and reflecting his initial treatment was received on 31 Jan 13.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Per SAF guidelines, entry into the MEDCON Program is voluntary and prior to being placed on MEDCON orders, members must sign an acknowledgment form stating they are aware of their responsibilities.  ARC members are partners in the process and play a necessary and important role in assuring the information related to their individual case is continually communicated to the Commander and Medical POC.  In this case, the applicant’s military orders where curtailed based on a civilian job requirement, as noted on the orders themselves, and there is no medical documentation showing a treatment plan for the condition highlighted by the applicant.  The applicant received a finalized LOD determination which gives him access to care at military treatment facilities or VA facility to receive additional medical care.  The applicant was eligible for the Transition Assistance Management Program (TAMP), which provides 180 days of premium-free transitional health care benefits after regular TRICARE benefits end. The evidence submitted in insufficient to warrant granting the request.  

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

BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  While the record clearly states the applicant developed symptoms in Jan 13 while on active duty orders, the symptoms apparently resolved in short order and there is no indication the condition rendered the applicant unable to perform his duties at the time.  There appeared to be a reluctance to place the applicant on documented duty restrictions.  Only a subtle “P2” [still worldwide qualified] is entered alongside recommended actions on his Chronological Record of Medical Care, and no AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, is supplied.  There was no information submitted to indicate the applicant has been entered into the Disability Evaluation System.  Moreover, it is not clear the significance of curtailing the applicant’s orders on or about 14 Mar 14 “due to civilian job requirements.”  The applicant has not demonstrated whether his medical condition adversely impacted his civilian employment, which could otherwise qualify for Incapacitation Pay.  Insufficient medical evidence is provided to demonstrate the applicant was unable to perform military duties, and if so, when said inability first began.  

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 27 Jan 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.


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 office of primary responsibility (OPR) and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  While we note the applicant’s contention he was released from his active duty orders early, the Board concurs with the statement from the BCMR Medical Consultant that his active duty orders were terminated due to civilian job requirements, and insufficient medical documentation has been submitted to establish that he could not perform his military duties.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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 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-2014-01833 in Executive Session on 16 Apr 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFA, dated 16 Jul 14.
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, 
            dated 18 Dec 14.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jan 15.