RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01272 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be entitled to medical continuation for the period 1 Oct 06 to 2 Nov 10. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While serving on extended active duty (EAD), she was injured and involuntarily released from active duty prior to her medical condition being resolved. She indicates that in accordance with (IAW) AFRCI 36-3004, Incapacitation Pay and Management Of Reservist Continued on Active Duty Orders, members on active duty orders for 31 days or more are not involuntarily released from their orders. If they incur a Line of Duty (LOD) medical condition, their orders must be extended until their medical condition is resolved. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; copies of documents from her servicemember medical records, and her EAD orders. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on the available evidence of record and the letter provided by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) office of primary responsibility, the applicant was recalled on EAD during the periods of 16 Nov 04 to 3 Feb 06 and 11 Jul 06 to 30 Sep 06. During the periods under review, the applicant injured her back on or about 1 Jul 05. She injured her back by falling as a result of her feet being caught in the perimeter rope. The applicant notified her immediate supervisor of the incident but did not seek immediate medical attention for at least one week. She eventually did go to the Navy Clinic and was assigned "light duty" for a short period of time. Her tour was extended to 3 Feb 06. An LOD was initiated, on 11 Apr 06, for the back injury. On 11 Jul 06, she was again recalled to EAD. The applicant was released from active duty on 30 Sep 06. A second LOD was initiated 10 Sep 07, for her back injury and for Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. On 6 Jan 10, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was conducted and the applicant was diagnosed with Lumbago, unspecified problems with neck, migraine with intractable migraine, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and panic disorder without agoraphobia. The medical board report recommended that her case be referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). The IPEB diagnosed the applicant with major depression disorder (MDD), recurrent severe with panic disorder with agoraphobia, chronic low back pain, cervicalgia, and migraine headaches. They recommended the applicant’s name be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), with a compensable rating of 90 percent. The applicant was placed on the TDRL, effective 3 Nov 10, with a compensable disability rating of 90 percent. She was credited with 12 years, 5 months, and 20 days of service for pay. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1PS recommends denial, stating, in part, at this time there is no documentation provided showing the applicant was unable to perform ~military duties (AF form 469 - Duty Limiting Condition Report). They note, the AF Form 469 would have a comment stating the date the applicant was not eligible to participate in unit training assemblies (UTAs), be placed on orders or be counted for Status of Resources and Training Systems (SORTS) or it would have shown her given an assignment availability code (AAC) 37. Unless the member was unable to perform military duties, she would not qualify for return to active duty under Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) policy. A thorough review of the documentation provided shows the injury that occurred 1 Jul 05 did not limit the member's duty performance at that time. The documentation provided failed to show the member was unable to perform military duties, which would have been noted on the AF Form 469. The complete AFRC/A1PS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provides an additional statement to justify her claim for retroactive compensation while she was on active duty from 16 Nov 04 through 23 Feb 06, without a break in service. She notes, following her injury, she informed her supervisor and he advised her to follow up with the Navy clinic, if needed. On 5 Jul 05, she reported to the Navy clinic with excruciating pain in her lower back with difficulty walking. After being seen, the clinic contacted her unit to request an LOD. They persistently continued inquiring about the LOD; however, up until 30 Sep 06, no LOD was initiated. She remained on active duty until 23 Feb 06, she was released from her orders because of funding; however, no LOD had been initiated. On 12 Apr 06, she was returned to active duty, she noted the injury and disclosed it to the medical squadron prior to her return. She remained on active duty orders until 30 Sep 06. At this time, she was no longer with the security forces squadron and had been reassigned to communications, and then to the headquarters squadron; as a result of these changes in assignments, there was confusion as to which unit would place her back on active duty. For over a year she has been seeking answers about being placed back on active duty orders or to receive drill pay for her medical appointments. She was advised that she would receive pay from the time her orders ended to the time she would be reviewed by an MEB; however, when she met the MEB, they explained to her that they do not give compensation for back pay. If she was able to perform her military duty, why is it that she has gone four long years without performing any duty? Her family has suffered immensely financially, spiritually, emotionally, and physically; and they are still struggling to piece their lives back together. The applicant’s complete response 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the NGB OPR that the governing directives and policies in these matters require medical documentation to show when the applicant was unable to perform her military duties. While we note that the applicant contends that she should have been medically continued on active duty from 1 Oct 06 to 2 Nov 10, in accordance with the governing instruction, the applicant has not provided any documentation to reflect when she became unable to perform her military duties. In this respect, we note that based on the evidence provided by the medical providers the applicant was released with work/duty limitations; however, none of the documentation reflect the applicant was unable to perform her military duties. Therefore, without evidence showing when the applicant was unable to perform her military duties, we do not find a sufficient basis to substantiate that she has been the victim of an error or injustice. In addition, it appears that should the applicant be able to provide documentation to the OPR verifying when she became unable to perform her military duties she could be afforded the relief she seeks administratively. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issue(s) 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-2011-01272 in Executive Session on 15 November 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Mar 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 22 Aug 11, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Aug 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Sep 11. Panel Chair