RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

		
IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02368
 					COUNSEL:  NONE
					HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receives Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 9 Dec 03, he was retired with a compensable percentage for 
physical disability of 40 percent.  

He contacted the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and 
was told that he was not eligible; however, the law changed in 
2004.  The FY04 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows 
for both payments to be phased in by 2014.  The CRDP payment 
should have been automatic. The new law does not require 
7,200 points, just 20 good years for Reserve retirement.  

He was not placed into Reserve Status waiting for retirement at 
age 60.  His records should be changed to reflect his eligibility 
for retirement pay at discharge. He is entitled to CRDP per 
10 U.S.C. § 1414 based on his retirement under the provisions of 
10 U.S.C. § 12731 as a Reserve member.  He should be allowed to 
have his record reflect the current law.  

The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to 
consider his untimely application as the phase in for CRDP was 
complete in 2014.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 Sep 85, the applicant entered the Air National Guard (ANG).
 
Per ARPC/DPPR memorandum dated 20 Apr 04, the applicant completed 
the required years of service under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 
12731 and was entitled to retired pay upon application at age 60.  

On 7 Jun 06, his records were corrected In Accordance With (IAW) 
10 U.S.C. § 1552 and Air Force Instruction, 36-2603, Air Force 
Board for Correction of Military Records, to reflect that on 
29 Jul 03, he was found unfit to perform the duties of his office, 
rank, grade, or rating by reason of physical disability incurred 
while he was entitled to receive basic pay.  He received a 
40 percent disability rating.  His record was also changed to show 
that he was not discharged from active duty and separated from the 
ANG under other than Chapter 61, 10 U.S.C. but on 9 Dec 03, his 
name was placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List and he 
was retired in the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6).   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DFAS-RPB-JFBE/CL recommends denial.  The applicant has served at 
least 20 years of qualifying service computed under 10 U.S.C. § 
12732; however, he has not reached the eligibility age for the 
career retirement and is not currently eligible to receive CRDP.  
Upon reaching age 60, he will become eligible to receive the CRDP 
and it will be paid with no action required by the applicant.  

A complete copy of the DFAS-RPB-JFBE/CL evaluation is at Exhibit 
C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He contacted DFAS in 2004 regarding his status for CRDP.  He was 
told that he did not meet the 7,200 point requirement.  The 
2004 NDAA does not require 7,200 active duty points, just 20 good 
years.  However, he is still being charged for the offset of his 
retirement pay.  He is also being charged for SBP just like he was 
officially retired from the military.  It is his understanding 
that if he was retired officially from the Guard, he would be a 
grey area retiree with a pink identification card.

The applicant’s complete submission, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
  
3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  While the 
applicant's contentions are noted, he has not provided substantial 
evidence which, in our opinion, successfully refutes the 
assessment of his case by the DFAS.  Therefore, we agree with the 
opinion and recommendation of DFAS and adopt the rationale 
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has 
failed to sustain his burden of proof of either an error or an 
injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.


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-2014-02368 in Executive Session on 17 Mar 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, DFAS-RPB-JFBE/CL, dated 1 Oct 14.
        Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 14.
        Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, 16 Oct 14.