RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00753

						COUNSEL: 

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reinstated to active duty in a Limited Assignment Status (LAS).  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her application for LAS was never considered prior to her medical retirement.  She submitted a LAS request twice; once to her Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO) on 8 May 13, and again after she was found unfit for duty on 30 Jan 15.  She wants to be afforded the same consideration as others, allowing her to complete 20 years of service.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the matter in question, the applicant was serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade to technical sergeant (E-6). 

On 18 Dec 14, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) was convened to consider the case of the applicant. 

On 29 Jan 15, the findings and recommendation of the IPEB were released.  The IPEB recommended permanent retirement with a combined compensable percentage disability of 30 percent.  

On 9 Feb 15, the applicant signed AF Form 1180, Action On Physical Evaluation Board Findings and Recommended Disposition, agreeing with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB and waiving her right to a Formal PEB hearing.  

In accordance with AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation, some members found physically unfit by a PEB can serve on AD in LAS with limitations and controls over their assignments. This option is open to members on EAD who meet the eligibility criteria and apply for LAS.  Members who have some type of non-disability retirement or separation pending are not eligible for LAS.

On 27 Jun 15, the applicant was released from active duty, effective 28 Jun 15.  She was permanently disability retired, and was credited with seventeen years, two months, and five days of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFDD (Disability) recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for physical disability processing in mid-December 2014.  On 29 Jan 15 she was found unfit by the IPEB, with a recommendation of Permanent Retirement (PR) with a combined compensable disability rating of 30% for Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, Right Lower Extremity with Peripheral Neuropathy.  The applicant concurred with the IPEB findings on 9 Feb 15 and her date of separation (DOS) was projected and retirement orders were published on 18 Feb 15.  On 25 Jun 15, an email was received by the disabilities office from the Office of Airman’s Counsel (OAC) with an application for LAS attached on the applicant’s behalf.  Despite receiving the LAS application two days prior to the applicant’s date of separation, well outside of the 10-day period afforded military members after receiving IPEB findings, the approval authority (Chief of USAF Physical Disability Division Directorate of Airman and Family) considered the request, but recommended disapproval, as no new documentation subsequent to IPEB findings was submitted, warranting an LAS review.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFDD (Disability) evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of her request, the applicant refutes the OPR’s recommendation to deny her request for reinstatement into the Air Force based on their opinion of no injustice occurring during the PEB process.  She argues that she submitted her initial LAS application to her PEBLO in Apr 13.  At that time her PEBLO advised it was too early to submit the LAS application, but she would place it in the applicant’s Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) folder in the event she had to undergo a full MEB.  On 30 Jan 15, her PEBLO advised her the IPEB recommended she be permanently retired.  On 23 Feb 15, she submitted a formal request to withdraw her agreement with the IPEB findings.  She followed up with her PEBLO on numerous occasions awaiting a response from AFPC.  On 25 Jun 15, she inquired with the PEBLO if she could still apply for LAS.  Her PEBLO informed her it was too late, but, via her legal counsel, she submitted the LAS application.  The Chief USAF Physical Disability Division Directorate of Airman and Family, did not approve her LAS application.  

She asserts she was never informed she would need to complete an additional LAS application, assuming her original LAS would go forward with other medical documents during the PEB process.  In support of her response, she reiterated the timeline and events that occurred beginning in Dec 14 culminating with her notification in Jun 15 of the denial of her LAS application.  She included copies of email traffic with her PEBLO, the Chief of USAF Physical Disability Division Directorate of Airman and Family, her counsel, her AFOSI commander, a 23 Feb 15 letter to withdraw her concurrence with the IPEB findings, a copy of her commander’s input statement for her MEB/PEB, and her 25 Jun 15 LAS package. 

A complete copy of the applicant’s 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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, to include her rebuttal; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  In this respect we note that her LAS application submitted to AFPC/DPFDD, and her DD Form 149 to this Board, lacked any evidence that her physical defect or condition leading to her permanent disability retirement had stabilized or, based on accepted principles, showed either a gradual improvement or slow progression, in accordance with LAS retention criteria.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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-2016-00753 in Executive Session on 21 Mar 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 15 Jun 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 16.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, received 8 Nov 16, w/atchs. 

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.