Introduction
On September 3, 2026, the Department of the Air Force issued a substantially revised DAFI 36-2023, The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC). The new instruction supersedes the June 2022 version and governs the organization, authority, composition, and procedures of SAFPC and its component boards.
Although DAFI 36-2023 is not the Air Force’s primary Disability Evaluation System regulation, it remains important to Airmen and Guardians navigating the DES because SAFPC’s Air Force Personnel Board adjudicates certain appeals involving medical fitness determinations and disability ratings arising from Informal Physical Evaluation Board and Formal Physical Evaluation Board proceedings. DAFI 36-2023, paras. 3.1.1, 3.1.4.2.
The revision does not appear to change the substantive standards governing whether an Airman or Guardian is fit or unfit for continued military service. Those standards remain principally governed by DAFI 36-3212 and applicable Department of Defense disability policy. Nor does the new instruction create a new disability-rating methodology.
Instead, the principal DES significance of the September 2026 revision lies in the procedural framework governing SAFPC review.
SAFPC Remains an Important Level of Disability Review
The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council is a quasi-judicial organization within the Air Force Review Boards Agency. One of its component boards, the Air Force Personnel Board, considers several categories of personnel matters, including certain medical and disability appeals.
DAFI 36-2023 expressly identifies appeals involving medical fitness determinations and disability ratings issued by an IPEB or FPEB as matters that may fall within the Board’s jurisdiction. DAFI 36-2023, paras. 2.1, 3.1.4, 3.1.4.2.
For service members, this is important because an adverse PEB decision may not always represent the final administrative word. Depending upon the procedural posture of the case and the governing DES authorities, further Secretarial-level review may remain available.
Accordingly, Air Force and Space Force DES counsel must understand not only the substantive standards applied by the PEB, but also the procedural rules governing the body that may later review those findings.
Disability Cases Continue to Require Medical Expertise
One of the more important provisions for DES practitioners appears in paragraph 3.1.2.3.
For physical disability evaluations, line-of-duty appeals, certain dual-action cases, and specified physical-disability retirement or separation matters, the Air Force Personnel Board quorum must include a medical corps officer or Civil Service equivalent. DAFI 36-2023, para. 3.1.2.3.
The instruction also preserves an important role for SAFPC medical advisors. Those advisors may provide guidance concerning fitness for duty, disability ratings, disability evaluation, line-of-duty determinations, and the effect of medical conditions on military duty performance. DAFI 36-2023, para. 2.3.2.
The practical lesson is straightforward: medical evidence in a DES appeal must be tied to function.
A diagnosis alone ordinarily does not establish that a member is unfit for continued military service. The central issue is whether the condition materially interferes with the member’s ability to reasonably perform the duties of office, grade, rank, or rating.
Accordingly, persuasive appellate records frequently depend upon evidence such as documented duty limitations, commander statements, deployment restrictions, occupational impairment, treatment requirements, inability to satisfy military requirements, and medical opinions explaining why the condition prevents reasonable performance of required duties.
SAFPC Decides Cases on the Record
The revised instruction also reinforces a procedural point that can be critical in disability appeals: the Air Force Personnel Board is not an investigative body.
Paragraph 3.1.3 provides that the Board reviews cases based upon the evidence contained in the record. Although board members may use professional knowledge and experience in evaluating a case, the instruction makes clear that such knowledge and experience do not themselves constitute evidence. DAFI 36-2023, para. 3.1.3.
That rule can have significant consequences.
A service member should not assume that SAFPC will independently locate missing evidence or correct factual deficiencies that were never adequately developed earlier in the DES process. If the record does not explain how a condition interferes with military duties, an appellate board is generally not charged with constructing that evidentiary case on the member’s behalf.
For that reason, effective DES appeals should identify the precise error in the challenged determination and connect that error to the existing evidentiary record. Where additional evidence may properly be submitted, it should directly address the specific deficiency rather than merely add cumulative medical documentation.
Revised Board-Composition Rules May Matter in Particular Cases
The September 2026 instruction also contains more detailed provisions governing the composition of Air Force Personnel Board panels.
Three members ordinarily constitute a quorum, although voting membership may be expanded depending upon the nature of the case. DAFI 36-2023, para. 3.1.2.
The revised instruction further provides that, where practical, cases involving Reserve Component members or Space Force members serving in a non-sustained-duty status should include an Air Force Reserve Component representative or Space Force non-sustained-duty representative. DAFI 36-2023, para. 3.1.2.4.2.
The instruction also states that, where practical, a case involving a warrant officer should include a Chief Warrant Officer in the quorum. DAFI 36-2023, para. 3.1.2.4.3.
These provisions are not absolute. The instruction permits exceptions where compliance would produce an inordinate delay based upon member availability and the circumstances of the case.
Nevertheless, where panel-composition information is available, counsel should assess whether the applicable composition provisions were followed. In a close case, procedural compliance can become important, particularly where the composition of the board may have affected the expertise brought to the adjudication.
What the September 2026 Revision Did Not Change
The new DAFI 36-2023 should not be overstated.
Although the instruction describes itself as substantially revised, its official summary identifies the major substantive revisions as changes involving the Airmen’s Medal and the range of decorations considered by the Air Force Decorations Board.
The Department of the Air Force did not announce a new substantive DES fitness standard, disability-rating methodology, or medical-retirement threshold as part of this revision.
Thus, the September 2026 update does not fundamentally alter the legal test for unfitness or change how disability percentages are calculated. Its principal significance for DES practice is procedural and institutional.
It confirms the continued role of SAFPC in reviewing certain disability matters, preserves medical-member requirements, defines the evidentiary nature of board review, and refines panel-composition provisions for specific categories of cases.
What Airmen and Guardians Should Take From the Change
For Airmen and Guardians currently navigating the Disability Evaluation System, the September 2026 revision becomes most relevant when a case progresses beyond the IPEB or FPEB level and reaches SAFPC review.
At that point, the administrative record matters enormously.
A persuasive appeal usually contains clearly identify the disputed finding, articulate the governing legal standard, isolate the legal or factual error committed below, and explain why the evidence requires a different result. Where the case involves a Reserve Component member, a Guardian serving in a non-sustained-duty status, a warrant officer, or a disability matter requiring medical expertise, reviewing the applicable panel-composition provisions is key.
The new DAFI 36-2023 does not rewrite the Air Force Disability Evaluation System. It does, however, update the rules governing an important level of review within that system. For service members whose continued military careers, disability retirement eligibility, or disability ratings depend upon the outcome, those procedural rules can be consequential.
How Joel Pettit Law Can Help
Disability Evaluation System cases often turn on more than the existence of a serious medical condition. The outcome frequently depends upon whether the record establishes functional impairment, whether the PEB applied the correct legal standard, whether favorable evidence was overlooked or minimized, and whether the administrative process complied with governing regulations.
Joel Pettit Law represents service members in complex military disability matters, including MEB rebuttals, IPEB appeals, FPEB proceedings, post-FPEB review, correction-board litigation, and Combat-Related Special Compensation matters.
When a DES decision is legally or factually deficient, effective advocacy requires more than submitting additional medical records. The appeal must identify the error, connect the governing law to the evidentiary record, and explain precisely why the challenged determination cannot stand.
Service members facing an adverse Air Force or Space Force disability determination should carefully review the procedural posture of the case, the applicable appeal rights, and the evidence necessary to establish the requested relief.
