RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02444 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to reflect the following: 1. She was retained on active duty for medical continuation during the period 9 Aug 80 through 11 Dec 80 due to the injuries she sustained in the line of duty (LOD) on 6 Aug 80. 2. The injuries she sustained in a car accident on 11 Dec 80 were determined to be in the LOD. 3. She was retained on active duty for medical continuation due to her 11 Dec 80 injuries until her discharge on 23 Apr 82. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. She sustained LOD injuries in a car accident on 6 Aug 80 and she should have been retained on active duty for medical hold. She was released from active duty on 8 Aug 80, only to be brought back to active duty on 11 Aug 80 for medical continuation. She has pay stubs and medical certificates that indicate she remained on active duty until 30 Nov 80. 2. She was still on active duty on 11 Dec 80 when she was seriously injured in another car accident. Unfortunately, she was probably dropped from the rolls because she was pronounced dead at the scene. However, she had to have been on active duty that day because she was on her way to a military medical appointment. 3. As her injuries that day were in the LOD, she should have been retained on active duty for medical continuation until her discharge on 23 Apr 82. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of her pay statements during the matter under review, excerpts from her military personnel and service medical records, selected e-mail correspondence, and two supporting statements. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s military personnel records, she served as a member of the Air Force Reserve during the matter under review. According to orders included in the applicant’s submission, she was ordered to active duty on 4 Aug 80 for five days for the purpose of attending professional military education (PME). She was released from active duty on 8 Aug 80. According to orders included in the applicant’s submission, she was ordered to active duty for Phase II of her PME on 11 Aug 80 for four days and released from active duty on 14 Aug 80. According to the applicant’s AF Form 348, Line of Duty Determination, she was involved in a car accident in a parking lot on 6 Aug 80 and her resultant injuries were determined to be in the LOD on 19 Aug 80. According to a copy of an AF Form 1971, Medical Certification, provided by the applicant, she was certified as physically unable to return to duty during the period 6 Aug 80 through 31 Oct 80, and, thus, she was eligible for continued disability pay during said period. According to a second AF Form 1971, she was again certified as such for the month of Nov 80, but was determined to be fit for duty, effective 30 Nov 80. On 11 Dec 80, the applicant was involved in a second automobile accident where she sustained additional injuries. On 9 Apr 81, the applicant’s profile was updated to indicate she was temporarily not qualified for world-wide duty. On 20 Jul 81, the applicant underwent a separation physical to determine whether or not she was fit for duty. She was found to be qualified for world-wide duty. On 1 Sep 81, her profile was renewed and she was restricted from performing any military duty for six months. On 13 Apr 82, she was discharged from the Air Force Reserve at the expiration of her term of service. On 3 Jul 85, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request for a medical retirement in lieu of her release from active duty for training. In the initial case, she contended she was released from active duty for training while she was still undergoing medical treatment for injuries she received as a result of automobile accidents on 6 Aug 80 and 11 Dec 80. The Board found that said treatment did not prevent her separation upon completion of her enlistment on 23 Apr 82 and the evidence of record clearly showed that she was physically qualified for continued military service and that her separation was voluntary. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s release from active duty, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/SGP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence indicating the applicant’s service connected acute neck injury rendered her unfit for military duty. Other than an active duty order for the period 11 through 14 Aug 80, she provides no other documentation to indicate she was on continuous active duty. Active duty status for periods of care and treatment were appropriate, however, continuous active duty orders would have been at the discretion of the applicant’s commander and there is no indication they were necessary. The period of 11 Dec 80 through 23 Apr 82 is not supported by any documentation. A complete copy of the AFRC/SGP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFRC/A1K recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not provided any supporting documentation that substantiates that a DD Form 214 should have been issued for the period of service in question (i.e., active duty orders reflecting that she completed 90 continuous days or more of active duty, or reflecting that she has been involuntarily mobilized during the event of a national emergency or war under 10 USC 12301, 12302, 12304, 12306, 12307, or 688, regardless of the number of days served, etc.). A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes the SGP assertion that she was not on active duty in the aftermath of her first car accident and provides copies of active duty orders, a police report related to the accident, a medical certificate, and copies of her LES’s in support of her claim. These documents establish that she was on active duty for 117 days and, as such, should make her eligible for a DD Form 214. Ultimately, she contends that she has proven that she was on active duty on 6 Aug 80 and 11 Dec 80 when she was injured in a second car accident and, as such, should have been retained on active duty until her discharge on 23 Apr 82. She further contends the Air Force lost track of her and she was never properly discharged with a separation physical. While the Air Force can show a physical was conducted showing she was fit for duty, it is not the required separation physical. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) conducted their own examination and awarded her a 20 percent compensable disability rating which is in direct conflict with the physical conducted on 20 Jul 81. In support of her response, the applicant provides an expanded statement and copies of additional excerpts of her military and service medical records, a supporting statement, and documentation that appears to be related to the ambulance that was dispatched to the scene of the 11 Dec 80 car accident. The applicant’s complete response, including attachments, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice with respect to the applicant’s claim she should have been retained on active duty for medical hold in the aftermath of her 6 Aug 80 car accident through the date of her discharge on 23 Apr 82. We note that while the applicant sustained injuries in the LOD on 6 Aug 80 and was released from active duty on 8 Aug 80, it appears as though she returned to active duty on 11 Aug 80, where she remained until she was declared fit for duty and released on 30 Nov 80. Based on the documentation provided, it appears as though competent authority determined she should be retained on active duty for the treatment of her LOD injuries until she was declared fit for duty and released on 30 Nov 80, as evidenced by the AF Form 1971, Medical Certificate, and LES’s included in her submission. Other than her own assertions, she has provided no evidence to indicate that this was an inappropriate remedy. In this respect, we note the comments by AFRC/SGP indicating that active duty orders for care and treatment of her LOD injuries would have been appropriate; however, continuous active duty orders would have been at the discretion of the commander. As regards to her contention that she was still on active duty on 11 Dec 80 when she was injured in a second car accident, we do not find the documentation presented sufficient to convince us that she was on active duty on this date, and therefore we are not convinced that her injuries resulting from the 11 Dec 80 car accident should have been determined to be in the LOD. While she has provided a supporting statement from her attending physician at the time attesting to the fact that he treated her on 26 Nov 80 and ordered her return to his clinic “about three weeks later,” we do not find this statement, in and of itself, sufficiently persuasive to convince us that she had not been released from active duty on 30 Nov 80. We further note the applicant’s assertion in response to the Air Force evaluations that she should not have been found fit for duty prior to her discharge on 23 Apr 82; however, in an earlier finding, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action in this regard. After thoroughly reviewing the documentation submitted in support of her current appeal and the evidence of record, we do not believe she has overcome the rationale expressed as the basis for our previous decision. Notwithstanding the above, we do find that sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice with respect to the applicant’s claim in rebuttal that she should have received a DD Form 214. We note the comments of AFRC/A1K indicating the applicant has not provided documentation that substantiates that a DD Form 214 should have been issued for the requested period of service. However, as we have noted above, the applicant has submitted medical certificates and LES’s which indicate that she served on active duty from 11 Aug 80 through 30 Nov 80. Accordingly, we are convinced that a DD Form 214 should have been issued to document such service as it exceeded the requisite 90 consecutive days required for a DD Form 214 to be issued. Therefore, we recommend the records be corrected to the extent indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that she was issued a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, for the period 14 August 80 through 30 November 80. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02444 in Executive Session on 15 Dec 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02444 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jun 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/SGP, dated 10 Sep 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 10 Sep 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 10. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Oct 10, w/atchs.