AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00347
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT:
He receive a medical retirement and awarded the Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant's military records, are contained .in the letters
prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this
Record of Proceedings.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and states
the applicant was not eligible for disability retirement since
laws in effect at the time of his discharge specifically denied
retirement eligibility for enlisted personnel who had less than
20 years active military service. Therefore, the BCMR Medical
Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is
warranted and recommends the applicant's request for a medical
retirement be denied.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit C.
The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPRA, reviewed this
application and states the applicant has not provided any
official documentation to substantiate any of his c-aims.
Therefore, they recommend denial of his request to be awarded the
DFC.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit D.
The Chief, Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this
application and states the applicant has not submitted any
material or documentation to show that he was improperly rated or
otherwise improperly processed at the time of his discharge.
Therefore, they recommend denial of his request for a medical
retirement.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit E.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
the applicant on 25 August 1997, for review and response. As of
this date, no response has been received by this office.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
1.
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 probable error or injustice. We
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 probable material error or
injustice; that the application was denied without a personal
appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered
2
upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not
considered with this application.
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 29 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. Loren S. Perlstein, Member
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Apr 97, w/atchs.
Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit B.
Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 9 May 97.
Exhibit C.
Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 22 May 97.
Exhibit D.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 6 Aug 97.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Aug 97.
VAUGH~ E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
3
There is no indication the applicant was ever recommended for the SS or DFC. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C . 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 Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02016
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his discharge, he was unable to perform his assigned military duties as an armament systems specialist. There is no evidence in the medical record that indicates that applicant was not fit for continued duty at the time of his separation. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request.
Although the applicant provided a written recommendation for award of the DFC for a specific mission which occurred on 1 7 February 1945, in his application he requests award of the DFC for completion of 25 combat missions. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORC E EVALUATIO N: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that at the time the written DFC recommendation was submitted, he had completed 26 missions. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01288 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Medal with 4th Oak Leaf Cluster (AM 4OLC) awarded for accomplishments on 10 Oct 44 be upgraded to a Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03225
He served 26 years, 6 months, and 27 days on active duty His CRSC application was disapproved on 6 Nov 03 based upon the fact that his service-connected medical conditions were determined not to be combat- related. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states his ejection was in 1959, not 1968 as stated by DPPD. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02630
In order to qualify for an Air Force disability retirement, she would have had to been referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) with a serious life threatening medical condition with an overall disability rating of at least 30 percent prior to her release form active duty. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant developed a bipolar disorder during the course of her active duty service, a condition which had not 2 AFBCMR 97- 01142 J been diagnosed prior to her service (as suggested by the IPEB) nor which was aggravated by "willful noncompliance" as the FPEB found. The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant should receive relief from the disability evaluation system and have...
Based on the applicant’s testimony and the medical evidence, the FPEB supported the findings and recommendations of the IPEB and recommended that the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a 20% disability rating. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating the applicant has not submitted any material or documentation to show he was inappropriately rated or processed under the...
_______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Applicant’s counsel submitted a 21-page Brief of Counsel with 17 exhibits to show that the applicant suffered an injustice when his squadron commander failed to completely implement his medical waiver from participation in the Air Force WMP and, subsequently issued him a LOR for unsatisfactory progress in the WMP resulting in the applicant losing his promotion to TSgt. Doctor D_______ concluded that a...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01188
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her commander recommended her discharge for failure to meet Air Force weight standards, while the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) recommended her discharge for a medical condition that existed prior to service (depression). The applicant was discharged on 19 Nov 97 and was issued an RE code of “2Q.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The...