RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04415

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST.  That she receive a medical retirement.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTION.  That her separation was improper since she was unduly influenced by her commander to take Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) instead of initiating a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  Her commander used discriminatory, deceptive, and misleading counseling contrary to her best interest.  She had open medical issues that should have placed her VSP package on hold in order to initiate a proper MEB as she was unfit for deployment or reserve duty.  These medical conditions continue to impact her life outside the service.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.  The applicant is a former Air Force captain.  

On 4 Apr 14, the applicant was approved for a 15 Jun 14 separation in accordance with the FY14 Voluntary Separation Pay incentive program.  

An undated 78 AMDS/SGPF memorandum indicated the applicant was medically cleared for retirement/separation.  

On 15 Jul 14, the applicant war released from active duty with a narrative reason for separation of Force Shaping – VSP.  

On 15 Apr 16, SAF/MRB denied the applicant’s request to waive her $37,060.96 VSP recoupment.  

On 15 Jun 16, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated the applicant with a total combined disability rating of 60 percent, effective 16 Jul 14 (day after separation).  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  AFBCMR Medical Advisor recommends denying the application.  Although the applicant was evaluated and treated for a number of medical conditions during her military service (respiratory ailments, evaluations and treatment for bilateral foot pain, abdominal and pelvic pain, two high-risk twin pregnancies, gall bladder removal, a C-section, and a hysterectomy), none of these permanently interfered with her ability to perform the duties of her office, grade, rank, or rating.  In 20/20 hindsight, the Medical Advisor can only speculate that the applicant’s case may have warranted a Medical Hold to conduct a Medical Evaluation Board for her medical conditions.  However, the facts of the case points towards the applicant’s desire for retention and avoidance of a MEB, with a conscious election to separate to avoid separation from her family when denied a joint spouse assignment, reflecting possible shared unclean hands in her case.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 4 Jul 17 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 26 Dec 17.  In her response, the applicant contends that the BCMR Medical Advisor’s evaluation missed multiple injuries and medical issues noted by the DVA as service connected and has applied a 70 percent rating and should include her Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia, rated, secondary to the hysterectomy.  She further contends the BCMR Medical Advisor statement that the “…applicant’s case may have warranted a medical hold to conduct a MEB…” should be enough to warrant a medical retirement along with the appropriate back pay.  Furthermore, the BCMR Medical Advisor failed to note the undue command influence attached to her decision to take the VSP.  The applicant is unsure how the BCMR Medical Advisor is considered an expert to comment on her conscious decision to leave but failed to comment on both her emotional state and physical well-being at the time of her decision.  Furthermore, the BCMR Medical Advisor argument that not a single of her current disabilities are limiting on their own; however, combined with others are indeed limiting.  She is certain she would have been on a permanent profile for sit-ups, and possibly push-ups, considered non-deployable, and deemed an unfit Airman.  She cannot help but take the BCMR Medical Advisor’s negative tone to be cherry picked along with the repeated comments on her desire to keep her family together, yet never mentioned the command influence.  All of the work issues, along with her physical and mental health problems, left her in a state that was not appropriate to make a life changing decision.  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, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the AFBCMR Medical Advisor and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board further notes the applicant has claimed undue command influence in her decision to separate from the service; however, she provides no evidence of an investigation with a substantiated finding.  Should she provide such evidence, the Board would reconsider her case.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:  The APPLICANT be informed that the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

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-2016-04415 in Executive Session on 28 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 4 Oct 16, w/atchs.
Exhibit B: Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Advisory opinion, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated 7 Nov 17.
Exhibit D: Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 8 Dec 17.
Exhibit E:  Applicant’s response, dated 26 Dec 17.

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