RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02972 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her disability discharge, with severance pay (DWSP) be changed 
to a disability retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was miscounseled by the Physical Evaluation Board Liaison 
Officer (PEBLO) about her available options at separation. 
While her concern was to be able to receive TRICARE benefits for 
the rest of her life, she was led to believe that this would be 
provided based on her rating from the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) and not the one from the Air Force. 

 

On several occasions, she made it clear to the PEBLO that she 
wanted a disability retirement in order to be eligible for 
TRICARE benefits. She was again advised that she would need a 
30 percent disability rating from DVA to be medically retired. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 10 Dec 10, a Medical Evaluation Board diagnosed the applicant 
with back pain with radiculopathy and referred her to an 
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). 

 

On 22 Dec 10, an IPEB recommended her discharge with severance 
pay, with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent, for 
chronic low back pain with radiculopathy, with transitional 
vertebrae, partial sacralization at the lowest level. On 
19 Jan 11, she concurred with the findings of the IPEB. 

 

On 23 Feb 11, the applicant was discharged with severance pay 
with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent. She was 
credited with one year, one month, and five days of active duty 
service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


AFPC/DPFD recommends denial, stating, in part, that based on a 
preponderance of the evidence no error or injustice occurred 
during the disability process. 

 

Although the applicant contends that she was not briefed 
correctly, that she would only receive TRICARE benefits if 
awarded the minimum 30 percent disability rating from the Air 
Force [sic], she provides no documents indicating the DVA 
awarded her a higher disability for her back. 

 

The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

She was told over and over again by military as well as civilian 
medical providers that her back condition would only get worse 
and because of this, believed that appealing the IPEB’s decision 
was not only pointless, but would waste a lot of people’s time, 
including her own. She was advised by the PEBLO that it would 
be silly not to accept the IPEB’s decision and risk losing any 
and all of her Air Force disability ratings. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at (Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the 
applicant’s contentions, we find no basis to warrant her 
disability retirement. In this respect, we note that in order 
for a member with less than 20 years of active military service 
to be eligible for disability retirement, they must have a 
combined disability rating of at least 30 percent. As such, 
while the applicant contends that she was miscounseled regarding 
the prerequisite for TRICARE eligibility, she has provided no 
evidence to indicate that she should have received a disability 
rating higher than the 20 percent she received. Therefore, in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-02972 in Executive Session on 7 Mar 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 18 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Nov 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair