RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-00285

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

He be paid $12,529.08 of the separation pay owed to him (corrected by DFAS).

His medical disqualification from the Air Force Reserve Command Surgeon General’s (AFRC/SG) office be overturned and he be allowed to enlist in the Air Force Reserve (AFR).

He be reinstated back on active duty to undergo the Disability Evaluation System (DES) process for a medical separation (revised in applicant’s response - Exhibit F).

His enlistment effective 1 Oct 20 reflect no lost time and his service date reflect the date he would have, if permitted to join the AFR.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He was involuntarily separated on 30 Sep 20 for two non-selections to the grade of major entitling him to full separation pay.  Per his final pay leave and earning statement (LES), he was paid $63,341.46.  AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 9 establishes the calculation procedures for separation pay.  Per the prescribed calculation, he should be entitled to 10 percent x 12 x $6,960.60 (final monthly basic pay) x 9 years and 1 month of active time which equals $75,870.54.  Multiple attempts to contact DFAS, AFPC, and his servicing finance office to obtain the correction were unsuccessful.

He was involuntarily separated and attempted to enlist in the AFR via the Palace Front program without a break in service.  However, AFRC/SG denied his medical clearance into the AFR.  His AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, from his active duty separation physical indicates the highest possible marks for his physical profile assessment and contains the verbiage "based on a full medical record review, the individual is medically qualified for continued enlistment and/or commission per AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards."  However, the memorandum from the AFRC/SG states "Member is medically disqualified for assignment in the AFR per the Medical Standards Directory (MSD), 13 May 20, I2, K18, K53, K57, and K74."  AFI 48-123, chapter 5 contains the medical standards for continued military service (retention standards) which indicate that these standards apply to Regular Air Force (REGAF) members and all individuals who have separated from REGAF and enlist in the Air Reserve Component (ARC) when no more than six months have elapsed between separation and reenlistment.  Therefore, the same set of standards apply to both his separation examination/AF Form 422 and his medical review for entrance into the AFR.  The attached letter from his Primary Care Manager (PCM) at his most recent active duty base provides a rebuttal of the AFRC SG's decision and support of the medical evaluation presented on his AF Form 422.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force captain (O-3). 

Dated 11 May 20, Memorandum to HQ AFPC/DPSOR/DPSOS, Medical Examination for Voluntary Separation, indicates the applicant acknowledged his desire for a medical examination in conjunction with his scheduled separation.  A physical examination was scheduled on 13 May 20.

Dated 13 May 20, AF Form 422, provided by the applicant, indicates he was medically qualified for continued enlistment and/or commission per AFI 48-123.

Dated 28 Jul 20, Memorandum from AFRC/SGO, provided by the applicant, indicates he was medically disqualified for assignment in the AFR per the MSD.

Dated 10 Aug 20, AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, indicates the applicant requested a release from active duty to transfer to the AFR.

On 30 Sep 20, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of captain (O-3) after serving 7 years, 6 months and 27 days of active duty.  He was discharged, with a narrative reason for separation of “Non-Selection, Permanent Promotion.”

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFRC/SGO recommends denying the applicant’s request to be found medically qualified for enlistment in the AFR stating the applicant should have undergone evaluation by Deployment Availability Working Group (DAWG) and a review in lieu of (RILO) a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) prior to separation from active duty.  The applicant was disqualified for entry into the AFR via Palace Chase due to having multiple medical conditions that contravened retention standards per AFI 48-123 and the associated MSD, which resulted in extensive exemptions from Physical Training (PT) testing.  As a result, per AFI 10-203 (now 48-133), Duty Limiting Conditions as well as AFI 41-210 (now 48-108), Tricare Operations and Patient Administration, reviewed by the DAWG and a RILO MEB was required with possible submission to MEB/DES process.  Per AFI 48-123, Certification and Waiver Authority, paragraph 1.2., 10.6.1 and Attachment 2, Palace Chase and Palace Front applicants require medical certification from the AFRC/SG prior to accession into the AFR, and any potentially disqualifying conditions must be appropriately addressed.  Within this process, the member is tentatively approved by HQ AFPC for early separation from active duty and subsequent assignment into the AFR under Palace Chase or Palace Front, however in the applicant’s case, he would have needed to undergo evaluation for MEB while on active duty.  Additionally, per AFI 48-123, AFRC/SGO delegates certification authority to the Active Duty Military Treatment Facility (ADMTF) to certify applicants for active duty separation and clearance for Palace Chase/Palace Front while retaining waiver authority for the same.  Specifically, chapter 5 of this regulation, which has since been updated, referenced medical conditions and defects that were potentially disqualifying and/or would preclude continued military service and thus lead to an applicant’s rejection based on the judgment of the healthcare provider.  Two cases were submitted for Palace Chase consideration and adjudication on behalf of the applicant, on 13 Jul 20 and 5 Aug 20.  Supporting comments from the board medical officer’s review in the 13 Jul 20 case highlighted potential retention issues per the MSD, to include Esophagitis, chronic back and neck pain, Talipes Cavus, arthritis, and lower extremities pain or disease.  Due to these conditions not being addressed, the applicant was disqualified for entry into the AFR.  Notes returned for action by the board medical officer asked for clarification, which were never readdressed.  The second case submitted on 5 Aug 20 included additional documentation from the applicant’s primary care manager (PCM) to be reviewed for reconsideration of previous disqualification.  The board medical officer as well as comments from the senior medical reviewer, again brought attention to the concerns addressed in the previous case as the fact remained that they required proper review and adjudication in order to move the case forward.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

DFAS notes the applicant was not originally paid the correct separation pay amount.  Another payment of $9,341.18 was processed on 9 Aug 21 and paid to the applicant.  The total amount paid was $12,529.08 minus $2,756.40 for Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW) and a debt of $431.52 from the previous payment for Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax. 

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinions to the applicant on 3 Sep 21 for comment (Exhibit E), and the applicant replied on 7 Sep 21.  In his response, the applicant agrees with the advisory opinion from AFRC/SGO which stated “Member should have undergone evaluation by DAWG and RILO processing prior to separation from active duty” and asked that he be reinstated back on active duty to undergo the DES process.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The AFBMCR Medical Advisor recommends denying the applicant’s request to be reinstated back on active duty to undergo the DES process for a medical separation.  This case is one whereby the applicant’s contention/request changed secondary to a statement submitted in an advisory to the BCMR.  The specific statement of concern was the last two sentences of the AFRC/SG’s advisory which read as, “Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts, there IS NO evidence of an error or injustice from a medical (SG) related standpoint.  Member should have undergone evaluation by DAWG and RILO processing prior to separation from active duty with RegAF.”  Per AFI 48-123, Chapter 5 (Retention Standards); Section 5A-Medical Evaluation; para 5.2, and sub-para 5.2.1 which in conjunction with the MSD includes medical conditions and defects that are potentially disqualifying and/or preclude continued military service.  These standards are not all inclusive and other diseases or defects can be cause for rejection based upon the medical judgment of the examining health care provider (HCP).  Airmen with conditions listed in this chapter and the MSD require evaluation for continued military service.  All potentially disqualifying medical conditions and defects are first reviewed by the DAWG per AFI 10-203 and AFI 41-210.  It is the opinion of this medical advisor that based on the way the AFRC/SG’s advisory to the BCMR was written, it appeared that the author did not conduct a review of the applicant’s electronic medical record. The statement of ‘Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts…’ does not necessarily include analysis of all medical records.  If such a review was performed, it would have been known that the applicant’s conditions were reviewed on multiple occasions by the DAWG whereby an MEB was not indicated.  In other words, the applicant’s physical conditions, despite resulting in multiple fitness profiling, were determined to be not unfitting and therefore, would not be considered for Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) referral.  Such description fully negates the applicant’s request to recall him back to active duty for adjudication of the DAWG, RILO MEB, and/or MEB processing.  Lastly, it is important to additionally point out that the applicant’s own treating HCP concluded that the applicant had no potentially disqualifying medical conditions at his separation physical on 13 May 20 and was cleared for entry into the reserve component with a completely normal physical profile.  Such documentation clearly revealed that a condition of unfitness was not present in this case.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit G.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 22 Sep 21 for comment (Exhibit H), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

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

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of offices of primary responsibility and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.
RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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 Docket Number BC-2021-00285 in Executive Session on 20 Oct 21 and 25 Oct 21:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 3 Jan 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFRC/SGO, dated 1 Sep 21.
Exhibit D:	Advisory Opinion, DFAS, dated 1 Sep 21.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 3 Sep 21.
Exhibit F:	Applicant’s Response, dated 7 Sep 21.
Exhibit G:	Advisory Opinion, AFBCMR Medical Advisor, dated 21 Sep 21.
Exhibit H:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 22 Sep 21.

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