RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-00653

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	 

   	HEARING REQUESTED: YES 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

She receive sufficient non-paid points for years 2014 to 2019 for satisfactory years of service.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

She was placed in a no pay-no points status for five years.  She does not request anything financially.  Per Air Force instructions, a medical case should only take one or two years, not seven years.  

She has been the target of a witch hunt and is an example of how poorly veterans are treated.  It has been seven years since an investigation began and she was not allowed to drill for five of the seven years.  She has been waiting for her leadership to come to a conclusion.

She has been a member of her aeromedical evaluation squadron (AES) since Jul 07 as a flight nurse.  She deployed to Haiti, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Her record is exemplary and she has never been written up for behavioral issues.  During the first two years of the investigation, she requested a medical examination so she could prove she was capable of performing her duties.  The request was denied twice but she is still being persecuted.  Conclusions were made without sending her for a mental health evaluation prior to the medical boards.  A physician who is not credentialed in mental health should have no authority to make a clinical decision.  She was not referred to a specialty physician until Jul 19, five years after she met the physical evaluation boards (PEB).  She was a victim of bias and gender discrimination. 

She did not make the best choices as a teenager and was prescribed antidepressants during that time.  She did not need them constantly nor every day.  They were prescribed to her to help her over the hump.  Her medical records show no clinical psychiatric background of seeing a psychiatrist.  She was never on Prozac consistently.  She has been a nurse for 15 years, 11 of the years were spent in the intensive care and trauma units.  She has also been a flight nurse with the military for over eight years.  If she was clinically depressed, there would have been a trigger during her three deployments or problems readjusting upon returning home; however, there were no behavioral issues and she has had no readjustment problems.    

She does not suffer from depression.  During the time when she was unfairly cast aside by the Air Force in Apr 14, she completed squadron officer school (SOS) and air command and staff college (ACSC) while in a no pay-no points status.  The Air Force also promoted her to major in 2018 while she was in a no pay-no points status.  She also learned ballroom dancing and scuba and sky diving.  Seven years later, she is still waiting for her leadership to make a decision.  A situation that should have been resolved within two years has dragged out to seven years, with five of the years being lost to leadership not making a decision or moving things forward.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a major (O-4) in the Air Force Reserve.  

AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, dated 7 Apr 14, reflects the applicant was restricted from participation for pay or points through 7 Apr 15.  It stated she was pending a medical evaluation board (MEB) or physical evaluation board (PEB) for a medical defect/condition.  

AF Form 469 dated 15 May 18, restricted the applicant from participation for pay or points through 15 May 19.  It stated the applicant was undergoing a MEB to determine medical fitness for worldwide duty and retention.  

For the period 7 Apr 15 to 28 Jul 17, the applicant’s Point Credit Accounting Record System (PCARS) record reflects the applicant was in a no-pay no points status and was credited with unsatisfactory years.  

In a letter dated 20 Mar 17, the Chief of Aerospace Medicine informed the AFRC/SG a narrative summary (NARSUM) dated 9 Jul 16 was submitted. The applicant’s pre-menstrual syndrome/possible premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) were resolved and not unfitting.  Her history of depression/anxiety, phase of life problem and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were also resolved and not unfitting.  The applicant denied any current symptoms of asthma.  Her prescription history does not reveal use of inhalers in years and she maintained a high level of physical fitness, scoring “Excellent” on her fitness assessments (FA).  He agreed with the medical evaluator, the applicant did not have asthma.

On 18 Apr 17, her Reserve Medical Unit (RMU) requested AFRC/SG determine if the applicant could be returned to military duty.  

On 28 Jul 17, AFRC/SGP determined the applicant medically disqualified for continued military duty in accordance with AFI 48-123, Medical Standards, for diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).  

On 5 Feb 18, in the Member Utilization Questionnaire, her commander stated the squadron had a worldwide mission with requirement for no-fail execution and that the applicant was unsuited to the requirement.  However, she was suitable for assignment to a ground nursing position.  The applicant would not be able to perform as a fully-qualified, unrestricted flyer and would not be an asset to the unit’s readiness.  

In a memorandum dated 18 Oct 18, ARPC informed AFPC PEB Office the applicant elected a fitness review and the case was referred into the disability evaluation system (DES) for a fitness determination.   

AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, dated 22 Oct 18, shows the informal physical evaluation board (IPEB) reviewed the applicant’s Non-Duty Related Fitness Determination and found the applicant unfit for her GAD with history of panic attacks and self-injurious behavior.

On 2 Nov 18, the applicant disagreed with the findings and recommendation of the IPEB and requested her case be referred to the formal PEB (FPEB) for a fitness determination.  

Per AF Form 356, dated 15 Jan 19, the FPEB returned the applicant’s case without action.  The applicant contended she should be found fit.  Her treatment for mood-related symptoms was remote and she appeared resilient having completed two deployments.  The NARSUM, which is out of date, submitted with her fitness determination corroborates her contention.  If the case is resubmitted, the package must contain a current mental health NARSUM completed by a mental health professional, which addresses the applicant’s current mental health condition as well as all other potentially unfitting conditions.

On 3 Jul 19, her commander informed her he elected to remove the restrictions on her participation status due to medical limitations documented on an AF Form 469.  

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

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

DODM 1332.18 V2, Disability Evaluation System (DES) Manual (Integrated DES), Enclosure 7, Timeliness Goals, paragraph 3, Because of unique medical documentation and orders requirements, it is the goal to complete 80 percent of cases for the Reserve Component members to no more than 305 days.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

ARPC/DPTS recommends denial. The applicant did not participate during the time requested and per AFMAN 36-2136, Chapter 2, paragraph 2.2., Points may only be credited to a reservist who actually performed the duty.  

The applicant’s point credit summary accounting reporting system (PCARS) record indicates that with the exception of completing distance learning professional military education (PME), she did not participate for points after 17 Apr 14.  She did not resume participation until 5 Apr 19.  Due to the lack of participation, she did not earn enough points to be awarded satisfactory years of participation from 6 Jul 14 through 5 Jul 19. 

It is recommended the office of primary responsibility (OPR) address the applicant’s concerns regarding the duration of the MEB/PEBs.  The applicant believes the duration was unjust.  

The complete advisory opinion, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFRC/SGO states the applicant was placed on mobility restrictions on 7 Apr 14 due to a medical condition contradictory to retention standards.  Because the applicant was placed on these restrictions, she was placed in a no pay-no points status as directed by AFI 36-2254, Reserve Personnel Participation.  This same instruction provides guidance on waiving restrictions to allow a member to participate. However, several constructive medical profiles clearly state the applicant’s mobility restriction and no pay-no points status.  There is no indication a participation waiver was considered or initiated, causing her to remain in a no pay-no point status.  Because the applicant was placed on mobility restrictions and no waiver was requested, policy supported the applicant to be in a no pay-no point status.

The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent copies of the advisory opinions to the applicant on 14 Dec 21 for comment (Exhibit E).  On 11 Jan 22, the applicant informed the BCMR staff she was unable to open the documents.  On 18 Jan 22, the documents were mailed to the applicant for comment.  As of this date, no response has been received.  

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 the victim of an error or injustice.  While the Board notes the recommendations of ARPC/DPTS and AFRC/SGO against correcting the record, the Board finds a preponderance of the evidence substantiates the applicant’s contentions.  In this respect, the Board finds the actions of her unit in placing her in a no pay-no points status for five years and the extended delay in processing her MEB/PEB case resulted in an injustice to the applicant.   While the Board is unable to corroborate the applicant’s assertions she was the victim of bias and gender discrimination, the Board finds the prolonged delay in processing the applicant’s MEB/PEB was contrary to DOD and Air Force DES timeliness goals.  Moreover, the Board finds the applicant’s completion of SOS and ACSC by correspondence during the period she was in a no pay-no points status as evidence she would have participated and performed Reserve duty had she been allowed. Therefore, the Board recommends correcting the applicant’s records as indicated below.  

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show she be awarded sufficient non-paid inactive duty training (IDT) points to reflect a total of 50 retirement points per retention/retirement (R/R) years from 6 Jul 14 to 5 Jul 19 to reflect satisfactory service for R/R years 6 Jul 14 to 5 Jul 19.  

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-2021-00653 in Executive Session on 11 Jan 22 and 18 Feb 22:

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 13 Dec 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, ARPC/DPTS, w/atch, dated 25 Oct 21.
Exhibit D: Advisory Opinion, AFRC/SGO, dated 19 Oct 21.  
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 14 Dec 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.