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.