Air Force Updates the Rules Governing SAFPC Disability Appeals: What Airmen and Guardians Need to Know

On September 3, 2026, the Department of the Air Force issued a substantially revised version of DAFI 36-2023, The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC).

At first glance, this may not look like an important change for an Airman or Guardian going through the Disability Evaluation System. DAFI 36-2023 is not the primary Air Force regulation governing the MEB and PEB process, and the new instruction does not create a new test for determining whether someone is fit or unfit for continued military service.

But that does not mean it is unimportant.

For certain Air Force and Space Force disability cases, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council can become an important level of review after the Informal Physical Evaluation Board or Formal Physical Evaluation Board has acted.

And the new instruction tells us something particularly important about how that review works:

SAFPC decides the case based upon the record placed before it. It is not there to investigate the case for you.

That distinction can make a tremendous difference.

The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council is a quasi-judicial organization operating within the Air Force Review Boards Agency.

One of its component boards is the Air Force Personnel Board.

That Board handles a variety of personnel matters, including certain medical and disability appeals. The new DAFI specifically recognizes appeals involving medical fitness determinations and disability ratings arising from the Informal Physical Evaluation Board and Formal Physical Evaluation Board.

In other words, an adverse decision from an IPEB or FPEB does not necessarily mean that every avenue of administrative review has been exhausted.

Depending upon where the case stands and the particular issues involved, further Secretarial-level review may still be available.

That is why it is important to think about a PEB case as a process rather than a single hearing.

• What you do at the MEB can affect the IPEB.
• What you submit to the IPEB can affect the FPEB.
• And the record developed at those stages can later become extremely important if the case reaches SAFPC.

For me, this is one of the most important provisions in the new instruction.

DAFI 36-2023 states that the Air Force Personnel Board reviews cases based upon the evidence contained in the record. It also expressly states that the Board is not an investigative body.

Board members may rely upon their professional knowledge and experience when evaluating a case, but their knowledge and experience are not themselves evidence.

That sounds like a technical procedural rule. In practice, it can be much more important than that.

• If your records do not adequately explain why your medical condition prevents you from performing your military duties, you should not expect SAFPC to go looking for the missing evidence.
• If an important duty limitation was never documented, the Board is not responsible for tracking it down.
• If your commander did not explain how your condition affects your ability to perform your job, the Board is generally not going to build that evidence for you.
• If a medical provider simply listed diagnoses without explaining the functional consequences of those conditions, SAFPC is not an investigative agency charged with filling in those gaps.

That means the record must tell the story. And preferably, it should tell that story long before the case ever reaches SAFPC.

This is an issue I see repeatedly in military disability cases.

A service member may have a very serious diagnosis and understandably believe that the diagnosis itself proves that he or she is unfit. Usually, it does not.

The disability system is concerned with function. The real question is generally not simply: What medical condition do you have?

The more important question is: What does that condition prevent you from doing as an Airman or Guardian?

That is why some of the strongest evidence in a disability case may include:

• Documented duty restrictions
• Deployment limitations
• Profiles
• Commander statements
• Missed or modified duty requirements
• Limitations on performing the member's AFSC or Space Force duties
• Treatment requirements that interfere with military obligations
• Inability to satisfy physical or occupational requirements
• Medical opinions explaining how the condition affects the reasonable performance of military duties

The September 2026 instruction reinforces this point because SAFPC's medical advisors may provide advice regarding fitness for duty, disability ratings, disability evaluations, line-of-duty determinations, and the effect of medical conditions upon duty performance.

The medical evidence therefore should not merely identify the disease. It should explain what the disease does.

The revised instruction also contains an important rule concerning who must sit on the Board in certain disability matters.

For physical disability evaluations, line-of-duty determination appeals, certain dual-action cases, and specified disability retirement or separation matters, the quorum must include a Medical Corps officer or Civil Service equivalent.

That is significant. These cases are not supposed to be evaluated solely as abstract personnel matters. In the categories identified by the instruction, medical expertise must be represented in the decision-making process.

The instruction also allows SAFPC medical advisors to advise the Board concerning medical issues such as fitness, disability ratings, disability evaluations, line-of-duty determinations, and the effect of medical conditions on duty performance.

For the service member, however, the practical lesson remains the same: Do not make the Board guess.

• If the medical issue is complicated, the record should explain it clearly.
• If the relationship between the condition and military duties is not obvious, the evidence should make that connection.
• If the PEB misunderstood a diagnosis, ignored a limitation, or incorrectly assessed the effect of the condition upon duty performance, the appeal should explain exactly where the PEB went wrong.

Another mistake I frequently see is the assumption that more medical records automatically make an appeal stronger. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they simply make the record thicker. There is a difference.

A persuasive disability appeal should ordinarily answer several basic questions:

1. What finding are you challenging?
2. What legal or regulatory standard applies?
3. What did the PEB get wrong?
4. Where in the record is the evidence showing that the decision was wrong?
5. What result should have been reached instead?

Those questions are far more important than simply attaching another 300 pages of treatment notes.

If additional evidence can properly be submitted, that evidence should have a purpose:

• It should fill an identified gap.
• It should address the reason relief was denied.
• It should document functional impairment that was previously unclear.
• Or it should establish a factual or medical point that the PEB misunderstood or overlooked.

An appellate submission should make it easy for the person reviewing the case to understand both the error and why the error matters.

DAFI 36-2023 also contains detailed rules concerning the composition of Air Force Personnel Board panels.

Ordinarily, three members constitute a quorum, although the voting membership can be expanded depending upon the nature of the case.

The instruction also provides that, where practical, a case involving a Reserve Component member or a Space Force member serving in a non-sustained-duty status should include an appropriate Reserve Component or Space Force representative. Cases involving warrant officers should, where practical, include a Chief Warrant Officer.

These provisions are not absolute. The instruction permits exceptions where satisfying the composition requirement would cause an inordinate delay based upon the availability of board members and the circumstances of the case.

Nevertheless, when board-composition information is available, it is worth reviewing. Procedural rules exist for a reason. In an appropriate case, whether the proper people participated in the decision can become part of the legal analysis.

It is equally important not to exaggerate what this new instruction does.

DAFI 36-2023 describes itself as having been "substantially revised," but its official summary identifies its major changes as involving the Airman's Medal and the range of decorations considered by the Air Force Decorations Board.

The new instruction does not announce a new substantive standard for determining fitness. It does not create a new disability-rating system. And it does not change the basic distinction between being diagnosed with a medical condition and being unable to reasonably perform the duties of military service.

Its importance to the Disability Evaluation System is primarily procedural. It tells us more about:

• Who reviews certain disability cases
• What expertise must be represented on particular panels
• What the Board considers
• How the Board operates
• What happens after SAFPC acts

Those procedural issues can matter a great deal when someone's military career and disability retirement benefits are at stake.

The revised regulation also provides a remarkably clear statement concerning the next step after SAFPC.

Under the delegated authorities described in the instruction, decisions of SAFPC component boards are final.

A service member seeking further administrative relief may pursue an application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, or AFBCMR, under DAFI 36-2603.

That is another reason the record created during the DES process matters so much. By the time a case reaches a correction board, the dispute increasingly becomes one about the administrative record:

• What did the PEB decide?
• What evidence did it have?
• What evidence did it overlook?
• What standard did it apply?
• Was the decision supported by the record?
• Was the correct procedure followed?

Those issues become much easier to address when the case was properly developed from the beginning.

If you are currently going through an Air Force or Space Force MEB or PEB, I would not read the September 2026 revision as a dramatic change to the Disability Evaluation System.

I would read it as a reminder of something much more fundamental: Build your case before you need your appeal.

• Do not wait until SAFPC to begin documenting how your conditions affect your military duties.
• Do not assume your diagnosis speaks for itself.
• Do not assume someone reviewing the case months later will understand what your job requires.
• And do not assume an appellate board will track down evidence that should already have been placed in your record.

Your medical records should describe your condition. Your duty evidence should explain its effect. Your commander evidence should describe what is happening in the workplace. And your appeal should connect those facts to the applicable legal standard.

The best appellate argument is often one that was being built long before anyone knew an appeal would be necessary.

The September 3, 2026 revision of DAFI 36-2023 does not rewrite the Air Force Disability Evaluation System.

But it does clarify and update the rules governing an important level of review within that system.

For Airmen and Guardians whose cases reach SAFPC, perhaps the most important lesson is also one of the simplest: The Board reviews the record you give it.

A well-developed case therefore requires more than proving that you have a medical condition. It requires demonstrating — through medical, occupational, command, and other relevant evidence — how that condition affects your ability to reasonably perform your military duties.

And when the PEB gets the case wrong, a strong appeal should do more than disagree with the outcome. It should identify the error, identify the evidence, identify the governing standard, and explain why the record requires a different result.

For more than twenty-five years, I have represented active-duty service members, Reservists, Guardsmen, veterans, and their families in military disability and military personnel cases.

As both a former Coast Guard judge advocate and a disabled veteran, I understand that a PEB case is not simply about percentages or paperwork. The outcome can determine whether a service member remains in uniform, receives disability retirement, qualifies for important benefits, and protects the financial future of his or her family.

My practice includes representation before Informal and Formal Physical Evaluation Boards, appeals within the Disability Evaluation System, and applications before the Boards for Correction of Military or Naval Records.

If you are facing an Air Force or Space Force disability determination, the earlier the evidentiary record is properly developed, the more options you generally preserve if the case later has to be appealed.