RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04319
 
  	COUNSEL: NONE

 	HEARING: YES 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST.   He be eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTION.   In BC-2014-04672, the AFBCMR placed him on MEDCON orders effective 29 May 13 to 14 Feb 14.  He was not notified of the approval of his application until Mar 16.  However, had the original MEDCON orders been approved, he would have accumulated the required military time to be eligible for at least some of the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit.   The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.  The applicant retired on 29 Oct 16 as a staff sergeant for permanent disability. For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  NGB/A1Y recommends denial.   The  MEDCON orders were the result from an in the line of duty (LOD) injury while performing Unit Training Assembly (UTA) duties which falls under Title 32, which per 38 U.S.C. is not qualifying time for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION.    It seems more appropriate for Reserve members injured in the LOD while performing Title 32 duties to fall under the “Other” category per DODI 1215.06, Uniform Reserve Training and Retirement Categories for Reserve Components, rather than under the “Training” category.  The “Other” category includes members ordered to active duty for medical reasons and 10 U.S.C. § 12301(h) and 12322 support his assertions.  He was placed in the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) in May 15.  His MEDCON orders should have been continued beyond Feb 14 based on the continued care he was receiving and he submitted a rebuttal response in his initial case.   The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.  

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was timely filed.  

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.  

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, to include the applicant’s rebuttal response, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with NGB/A1Y and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  

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.

CERTIFICATION: The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-04319 in Executive Session on 13 Mar 18.

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A: Applicant’s application, DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 16, w/atchs.
Exhibit B: Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Advisory opinion, NGB/A1Y, dated 20 Jun 17.  
Exhibit D: Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBR to applicant, dated 6 Oct 17.
Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 17 Oct 17, w/atch.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.