RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03503 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His disability retirement be changed to reflect that he was 
retired under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

During his 19th year of service, he was given the option to 
retire early for medical reasons and he accepted that option and 
believes he should be entitled to Concurrent Retirement 
Disability Pay (CRDP). 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 1 May 01, the applicant was retired with a compensable 
disability rating of 30 percent and his name was placed on the 
Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL). He was credited with 
18 years, 11 months, and 13 days of active service for 
retirement. 

 

The applicant was rated at 100 percent employable by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and is in receipt of 
disability compensation from the DVA. His military disability 
retired pay is in a non-pay status due to the offset of his 
compensation from the DVA in full and has only been receiving 
this compensation since 1 Oct 04. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

DFAS recommends denial, stating, in part, that the applicant’s 
record indicates that he completed 18 years, 11 months, 13 days 
of total active service. No provisions of the law allow members 
who retire by reason of physical disability with less than 
20 years of total active service or 20 years of qualifying 
service for members of the Air Reserve component to receive 
CRDP; therefore, the applicant is not entitled to CRDP. 

 

The complete DFAS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 


 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates his original contention that he should 
be eligible for retirement under TERA. He had to retire due to 
medical hardship and is currently rated by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs with a compensable rating of 100 percent. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
(Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service office of primary 
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. In addition, while the applicant seems to 
have an understanding that TERA is an entitlement, it is not. 
In this respect, we note the Secretary of Defense authorized the 
service Secretaries the use of TERA authority as a force shaping 
draw down tool; not as an entitlement. Further, the applicant 
indicates that he took the disability option to retire early; 
however, once a member has been found unfit or disqualified for 
further service, they are processed for immediate separation. 
Aside, along with his concurrence with the findings of the 
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), the applicant 
submitted a letter requesting expeditious processing of his 
disability retirement. While the applicant requests his record 
be corrected to reflect that he was retired under TERA, rather 
than under Title 10 USC Section 1201, in order to garner 
entitlement to CRDP, he has not provided substantial evidence 
that his disability retirement was in error or unjust, only that 
it would afford him eligibility to qualify for CRDP, which was 
not in existence at the time of his separation. Therefore, in 
view of the above and 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 that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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-2012-03503 in Executive Session on 21 May 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Jul 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, DFAS, dated 2 Oct 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Veterans Service Organization, 

 dated 29 Oct 12, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair