AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  95-03389 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
He be returned to active duty so  that the dental treatment he was 
unable to receive prior to his retirement may be completed. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
On 22 Nov  93, he  initiated paperwork to HQ AFMPC to extend his 
retirement  date  to  coincide  with  the  completion  of  his  dental 
treatment.  It was  denied  by  AFMPC  on  the  basis  that  medical 
treatment would be available by the Veterans Administration  (VA) 
after his  retirement.  He turned  in all necessary paperwork  to 
the  VA  that  indicated  he  was  not  eligible  to  receive  medical 
treatment.  The dental problem developed since he entered the Air 
Force.  He was given erroneous information by AFMPC. 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal 
statement, an Inspector General  (IG) Report of Review, and other 
documents associated with the matter under review. 
Applicant‘s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

- 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant  contracted his  initial enlistment  in the  Regular  Air 
Force on 31 Oct 73.  He entered his last enlistment on 25 Oct 89 
for a period of 4  years.  During his service on active duty, he 
was progressively promoted.to the grade of master sergeant. 
(The following  facts were  taken  from documentation provided by 
the applicant) : 
In  Jan  93,  th 
AFB  Dental  Clinic  began  preparing  and 
coordinating a major oral rehabilitation treatment plan  for the 
applicant with the -Naval 

Medical’Center. 

93,  the applic 
ve 1 Dec 93. 

nt applied for voluntary retirement to 

c  ,. 

cs at theql)yrAFB  Dental 
FB requesting support for 

On  14 Ma 
be effec. 
On  17 May  93,  the applicant learned his dental treatment would 
take 14 to 18 months. 
On 23 Aug 93, upon learning of the applicant's  projected 1 Dec 93 
retirement  date,  the  Chief  Resident,  Oral  and  Maxillofacial 
Surgery, Naval Medical Center, wrote the Chief, Consolidated Base 
Personnel Office  (CBPO) at 
recommended extending  the 
applicant's  retirement  date  to cover his  14  to  18-month dental 
treatment period due to commence in Sep 93. 
On 10 Sep 93, the Chief of Prost 
Clinic wrote the Chief, CBPO at 
their efforts towards keeping the applicant on active duty. 
On 2  Oct  93,  HQ AFMPC disapproved the applicant's  first request 
to cancel or change his retirement action. 
On  12  Oct  93,  the  surgical phase  of  the  applicant's  treatment 
Naval Medical Center. 
plan was  scheduled to begin at the 
However,  it  was  postponed  due  to  the  surgeon's  unexpected 
involvement in a trauma operation that day. 
On 15 Oct 93,  the surgeon at 
Naval Medical Center decided 
not to schedule the surgical phase 'of the applicant's  treatment 
until his retirement request was canceled. 
On 4 Nov 93, the applicant submitted a second request to withdraw 
his  retirement  application;  this  time  due  to  severe  financial 
hardship. 
On  30  Nov  93,  HQ AFMPC  disapproved the  applicant's:  request  to 
extend his 1 Dec 93 retirement date. 
Applicant was relieved from active duty on 30 Nov  93 and retired 
for length of service, effective 1 Dec 93, kn the grade of master 
sergeant.  He was credited with  20  years and  1 month  of active 
duty service. 
Following his 1 Dec 93 retirement, the applicant applied to the  - 
VA for his final dental treatment. 
On  2  Feb  94,  the  VA  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was  only 
eligible  for  Class  I1  dental  care  and  did  not  qualify  for 
implants. 
On  30  Sep 94,  the applicant sent his case file to a senior' Air 
Force  official  requesting  his  assistance.  After  acknowledging 
receipt,  the  official  forwarded  the  applicant's  file  to  the 
United States Air Force Academy Inspector General  (HQ USAFA/IG). 

, .:' 

2 

AFBCMR 95-03389 

On  2  Dec  94,  after  informal  attempts  failed  to  resolve  the 
applicant's  concerns, HQ USAFA/IG sent his case to HQ AFMPC/CS. 
On  25  Jan  95,  HQ  USAFA/IG  notified  the  applicant  that  his 
situation could only be remedied by the VA. 
On 27 Mar  95, HQ USAFA/IG sent the applicant's  case file.to the 
Secretary  of  the  Air  Force,  Office  of  the  Inspector  General 
Inquiries Directorate (SAF/IGQ) . 
In  a  Report  of  Review,  dated  5 Sep  95, SAF/IGQ  found  that  HQ 
AFMPC based disapproval of the applicant's  two requests to cancel 
or  change his  retirement date  on an erroneous Medical  Services 
staff input that retention on active duty was not necessary-the 
applicant  could  receive the  dental  treatment  he  needed  through 
the VA.  (Only veterans eligible for Class I dental treatment-the 
applicant was  eligible for Class I1 treatment-could receive the 
type  of  dental  care  needed  by  the  applicant  (dental implants) 
through the VA. 
SAF/IGQ concluded the following: 

>. 

a.  On  14 May  93, the  applicant-while being  evaluated  for 
major  oral  rehabilitation-voluntarily applied  for retirement to 
be effective 1 Dec 93. 

b.  As  soon  as  the  applicant  learned  that  his  dental 
treatment plan would extend beyond 1 Dec 93-he was ineligible for 
treatment at the -Naval 
Medical Center after he retired-he 
twice attempted to change or cancel his retirement date.  These 
efforts continued until 30 Nov 93-the day before his retirement. 
c.  Air  Force and Naval dental officials familiar with  the 
applicant's  case  requested  his  retirement  date  be  extended  to 
cover his 14 to 18 month dental treatment plan. 

d.  The  applicant  was  eligible  to withdraw  his  retirement 
request.  His dental condition and treatment plan-the evaluation 
and  coordination  took  nine  months-were  not  common  among 
retirement  eligible  members. 
Further,  the  cost  of  comparable 
civilian dental care would have been prohibitive and represented 
a severe financial hardship for the member. 

- 

e.  HQ AFMPC/DPPRS based its disapproval of the applicant's 
two requests to cancel or change his 1 Dec 93 retirement date on 
an  erroneous  staff  input;  that  is,  HQ  AFMPC/DPMMM's  assertion 
that  the applicant  could obtain the dental  treatment he  needed 
through the VA. 

. .. 

f.  The Air  Force Board  for Correction of Military  Records 
(AFBCMR) is the only appeal channel available to the applicant; 
he has exhausted all other administrative processes. 

3 

AFBCMR 95-03389 

now 

requests 

is 

follow-up  care 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Medical  Consultant  to the AFBCMR  reviewed  this application 
and  indicated  that  a  review  of  the  applicant's  dental  reeords 
reveals he had a dental appointment in Oct 93, the month p-rior to 
retirement, but that dental care could not be completed prior to 
retirement. 
Therefore,  his  request  is  appropriate  and  that 
recommendation would have been made.  However, this all occurred 
about  three  years  ago.  Dental,  as  well  as  any  other  medical 
condition, can seriously deteriorate within this time period  if 
appropriate  therapies  are  not  received. 
The  fact  that  the 
applicant 
considered 
As  is  noted  in  the  dental  records,  this  is 
inappropriate. 
complex care which may have significantly gotten worse over the 
years.  For this reason alone, the Medical Consultant recommended 
disapproval. 
The  Medical  Consultant  concluded  that  the  Dental  Clinic  was 
unable  to  provide  complete  dental  care  which  was  fairly  well 
documented in the dental entry of  5 Apr  95.  He also concluded 
that since this complex care has been held in abeyance for such a 
long period of time, the request should be denied. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Medical  Consultant's  evaluation  is  at 
Exhibit C. 
The  Program  and  Procedures  Branch,  AFPC/DPPRP,  reviewed  this 
application  and  recommended  denial.  According  to  DPPRP,  they 
found  no  evidence  of  error,  injustice,  or  impropriety  in  the 
processing of the applicant's  retirement action.  The applicant 
submitted  a  valid  request  to  retire,  which  was  approved. 
Further, his subsequent request to change his retirement date was 
evaluated and denied based on the recommendation of AFMPC/DPMMM. 
If the AFBCMR finds in the applicant's  favor, it would result in 
granting unearned additional active service for time not served. 
DPPRP pointed out that there are other possible options that may 
be beneficial to the applicant consisting bf  a waiver of the VA 
policy or a Congressional request for care as mentioned in his IG 
report/findings. 
A complete copy of the DPPRP evaluation, with attachments, are at  - 
Exhibit D. 
The  Medical  Standards  Branch,  AFPC/DPAMM,  reviewed  this 
application  and  recommended  denial.  DPAMM  indicated  that  the 
evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation 
indicate  the  applicant  was  fit  and  medically  qualified:-'for 
continued military service or appropriate separation and did not 
have any physical or mental condition which would have warranted 
consideration  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3212,  Physical 
Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and Separation.  Action and 
disposition in this case were proper and reflect compliance with 
Air Force directives which implement the law. 

4 

AFBCMR 95-03389 

A complete copy of the DPAMM evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Copies of the Air  Force evaluations were  forwarded to applicant 
on  20  May  96  for  review  and  response.  As  of  this  date,  no 
response has been received by this office  (Exhibit F). 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3 .   Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable  error  or  injustice.  The 
evidence  of  record  reflects  that  the  applicant  had  dental 
problems that  required extensive treatment beyond  his voluntary 
retirement date.  However, his requests to cancel or change his 
retirement date until the dental work was completed was denied by 
AFMPC.  The  basis  for  the  disapproval  was  that  the  applicant 
could receive the dental treatment he needed from the VA.  After 
a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we 
noted  that  the  applicant  was  not  eligible  for  the  dental 
treatment by  the  VA.  Therefore,  in our  view,  the  information 
used as a basis for the denial was erroneous.  Also, as indicated 
by SAF/IGQ in its Report of Review, the applicant's  condition and 
necessary  treatment  were  not  common  about  retirement  eligible 
members.  Furthermore, it  appears that  the  cost  and  comparable 
civilian  dental  would  have  been  prohibitive  and  represented  a 
severe  financial  hardship  for  the  applicmt.  In  view  of  the 
above,  we  believe  that  corrective action  is warranted  in  this 
case.  Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant's  records be 
corrected as indicated below. 
4 .   We  noted  the  applicant's  request  that  he  be  reinstated  to 
active duty s o   that the dental treatment he was unable to receive 
prior to his retirement may be completed.  While we are persuaded 
that  the  applicant's  requests  to  change  his  retirement  date 
should not have been disapproved based on erroneous information, 
we do not believe that returning him to active duty, at this;.$ate 
date, would be the appropriate or necessary course of action.  We 
are  aware  that  under  certain  circumstances,  retirees  can  be 
provided  dental  care,  only  if  the  workload  of  the  providing 
facility permits.  Based  on the error and  injustice present  in 
this case, we believe it should be directed that the applicant be 
provided  the  required  dental  care  at  the  nearest  Air  Force 

5 

AFBCMR 95-03389 

facility 
only by 
relief. 

, as an exception to policy.  In our estimation, it  is 
such action that he will be afforded proper and fitting 

L  >. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that, as an exception 
to policy, competent authority authorized the scheduling of his 
required  dental  treatment  at  the  earliest practicable  date,  at 
the nearest Air Force installation to his home of selection. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session  on  2 6   Aug  97,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
36- 2603: 

Ms. Cathlynn Sparks, Panel Chair 
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member 
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member 

All members  voted  to correct the  records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149,  dated 2 1  Oct 95,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRP, dated 28  Mar 96. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPAMM, dated 6  May 96. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 0   May 96. 

2 6   Feb 96. 

Panel Chair 

6 

AFBCMR 95- 03389 

D E P A R T M E N T   O F  T H E   A I R   F O R C E  

H E A D O U A R T E R S   A I R   F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H   A I R   F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

28 March 1996 

MEMOKANDUM FOR HQ AFPClDPAMM 

AFBCMR 
INTURN 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPRP 

550 C Street West Ste 11 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

Requested Action.  The applicant retired on 1 Dec 93.  He is requesting he be returned to 

active duty so that dental treatment he was unable to receive prior to retirement may be done. 

Basis for Requa . The applicant claims he was erroneously denied a change to his 

retirement date to complete dental treatment. 

Discussion: 

a. The applicant submitted his request for retirement on 13 May 93 to be effective 
The applicant states he believed dental treatment he was scheduled to receive 

1 Dec 93- 
would be completed by that date. 

b.  Because the applicant found out that the treatment would actually require 14 to 

18 months to complete, he requested a change to his retirement date.  The applicant provides a 
copy of a second AF Form 1160 dated 4 Nov 93 
in which he requests a change to his 
approved retirement date.  He based his request 
ial hardship stating ifthe dental 
treatment was done after retirement, it wo 
by the CBPO (now the Military Personnel 
However, he provides an undated letter fi 
and Separations Branc-at 
veri 
recommendation fiom the Medical Standards Division (AFMPCDPMMM now AFPCDPAMM). 
It was denied because the applicant supposedly could obtain dental treatment from Veterans 
Administration (VA) channels. 

. The AF Form 1 160 is not signed 
e submitted the request to them. 
Executive NCO of the Retirements 
mitted and denied based on a 

c.  The applicant submitted an IG complaint in the latter part of 1994 concerning 

his case.  Results of that complaint indicate that applicant’s only relief was to obtain dental service 
through the V A d p l l l c l  

d.  The applicant provides a 21 Feb 95 letter fiom the VA Regional Office in San 

Diego CA that tells the applicant he is ineligible for VA dental treatmen- 

e.  The advisory fiom the Medical Consultant to the AFBCMR states that he 

believes the applicant should have been allowed to remain on active duty to complete his dental 
treatment.  However, he fbrther states that relief as requested is inappropriate as applicant’s 
medical condition could have seriously deteriorated within the three years that have elapsed.  For 
this reason alone, he recommends disapproval. 

f.  Air Force policy provides for withdrawal or extension of an approved 

retirement for hardship or best interest of the Air Force.  The applicant submitted such a request 
which was denied based on a review of the request by AFMPCDPMMM. 

g.  AFR 35-7, Service Retirement, dated 1 Oct 87 is the Air Force regulation that 

applied when the applicant retired.  Paragraph 5-4 of that regulation 
member’s retirement date will not be delayed if the retiree’s medical 
However, ifa member’s condition renders the member questionable for continued active duty, the 
member may be placed on medical hold by AFMPC/DPMMM when the medical facility 
commander requests their review.  If placed on medical hold, the member may not be,allowed to 
retire until the medical condition is resolved.  The applicant was not placed on medical hold.  This 
may have been because his dental procedure was elective or because the medical facility 
commander did not request a medical hold. 

ates that a 
is elective. 

h.  Since only AFMPCDPMMh4 could have placed the applicant on medical hold, 

we defer to AFPCDPAMM for their evaluation regarding this issue.  Our recommendation 
addresses only the retirement processing issue. 

Recommendation.  Denial.  We find no evidence of error, injustice, or impropriety in the 
processing of the applicant’s retirement action.  The applicant submitted a valid request to retire, 
which was approved.  Further, his subsequent request to change his retirement date was evaluated 

. 

. <  

I 

b 

.- 

and denied based on the recommendation by AFMpC/DPMMM.  If the AFBCMR finds in the 
applicant's favor, it would result in granting unearned additional active service for time not 
served.  We wish to point there are other possible options that may be beneficial to the applicant 
consisting of a waiver of the VA policy or a Congressional request for care as mentioned in his IG 
repodfindings. 

**  .> 

, GS-9 

Programs & Procedures Branch 
'  Directorate of Pers Prog h@mt 

... 

-- 

- 

D E P A R T M E N T  OF THE AIR  F O R C E  

W A S H I N G T O N  DC 

26 February  1996 

FROM: Medical Consultant to the Air Force BCMR 

1535 COMMAND DRIVE 
EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 
ANDREWS AFB, MD. 20762 

f 

SUBJEC 

Applicant's  entire  case  file  has  been  reviewed  and  is  forwarded  with  the  following  findings, 
conclusions and recommendations. 

fP 

e 

I * 

The  applicant  was  retired  on  30  November  1993  after  having  served  twenty  years  of  active 
military  service.  He  now  applies  requesting  his  DD  Form  214  (Certificate  of  Release  or 
Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show all dental work was not completed within 90 
days of retirement. 

II_ 

? 

%

I

 

Review  of dental records reveals the applicant  had  a  dental  appointment  in  October  1993, the 
month  prior  to  retirement,  but  that  dental  care  could  not  be  completed  prior  to  retirement. 
Therefore, his request is appropriate and that recommendation would have been made.  However, 
this  all  occurred  about  three  years  ago.  Dental,  as  well  as  any other medical  condition,  can 
seriously deteriorate within this time period  if  appropriate therapies are not  received.  The fact 
that applicant now requests follow up care is considered inappropriate.  As is noted in the dental 
records, this is complex care which may have significantly gotten worse over the years.  For this 
reason and this reason alone, the Medical Consultant recommends this be disapproved. 

The Medical  Consultant  therefore  concludes  that  the  Dental  Clinic  was  unable  to  provide 
complete dental care which is fairly well documented in the dental entry of 5  April  1995.  He also 
concludes that since this complex care has been  held  in abeyance for such a long period  of time, 
the request should be denied. 

Medical Consultant to the Air Force BCMR 

. -  

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

6 May 96 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQAFTCDPAMM 

550 C Street West, Suite 26 
Randolph AFB TX  78150-4728 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Recor- 

Applicant’s entire case file has been reviewed and is forwarded with the following 

findings, conclusions and recommendations. 

Evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation indicate the applicant 

was fit and medically qualified for continued military service or appropriate separation and did not 
have any physical or mental condition which would have warranted consideration under the 
provisions of AFI 36-32 12, Physical Evaluation for Retention Retirement and Separation. 
Reasons for discharge and discharge proceeding are well documented in the records.  Action and 
disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance with Air Force directives which 
implement the law. 

The Chief of Medical Standards Branch is of the opinion that no change in the records is 

warranted and the application should be denied. 

i  *f 

fC. C W C i

l

Chief, Medical Standards Branch 
Directorate of Assignments 

,

 USAF, MC 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

SEP  2  4  I996 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 95-03389 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for 

Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States 
Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: 

ilitary records of the Department of the Air Force relating t 

e corrected to show that, as an exception to poli 
of his required dental treatment at the earliest 

... 

nearest Air Force installZion to his home of selection. 

~ 

Director 
Air Force Review Boards Agency 

LY