AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

-. --  

- 

- 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97- 00726 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED: 

NO 

to reflect that 
Applicant requests that his 
he- was medically  retired, with entitlements to retired benefits 
and privileges.  Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. 

records be corrected 

The appropriate Air  Force offices evaluated applicant's request 
and  provided  advisory  opinions  to  the  Board  recommending  the 
application be  denied  (Exhibit C).  The  advisory opinions were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response  (Exhibit D). 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

After  careful  consideration  of  applicant's  request  and  the 
available evidence  of  record, we  find  insufficient evidence  of 
error or injustice to warrant  corrective action.  The facts and 
opinions stated  in the  advisory opinions appear to be  based  on 
the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by  applicant. 
Absent  persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which 
entitled,  appropriate  regulations  were  not  followed,  or 
appropriate  standards  were  not  applied,  we  find  no  basis  to 
disturb the existing record. 

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. 

The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. 
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and 
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant 
evidence  which  was  not  reasonably  available  at  the  time  the 
application was filed. 

Members  of  the  Board  Ms.  Charlene  M.  Bradley, Mr.  Richard  A. 
Peterson, and Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., considered this application on 
27  Jan  98  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Air  Force 
Instruction 36- 2603  and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552. 

Panel Chairman 

v 

Exhibits : 
A.  Applicant's DD Form 1 4 9  
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinions 
D.  SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions 

. 

i 

* 

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

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  AIR  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  AIR  F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

U.S. AIR FORCE 

B 

23 July,  1997 

1 9 4 7 -  1 9 9 7  

MEMORANDUMFOR  SAF/MIBR 
FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPAT 

550 C Street West,  Ste 10 
Randolph  AFB TX 78 15047 12 

lication for Correction of Military Records 

The applicant asks to be placed on the retired list because a reading disorder 

prevented him from making rank and attaining retirement.  He indicates he asked to be 
tested orally on his promotion tests but was informed oral test administration was not 
allowed. 

We recommend denial of the applicant’s request.  The only documentation 

provided by the applicant to support his request is an undated letter apparently signed by 
the commandant of an Air Force school.  The document refers to the applicant’s poor 
reading skills.  There is no documentation showing the applicant requested help for his 
problem.  Additionally, there is no docmentation in his application or in our Eiles 
concerning his request to be tested orally. 

Requests for alternative test administration methods require approval from our 

office.  Our decisions are based on the documentation provided and opinions of our 
medical and legal staffs.  Absent medical documentation of the applicant’s alleged 
disability while on active-duty, a formal evaluation cannot be completed.  Accordingly, we 
must recommend denial of the applicant’s request. 

Please call MSgt Rush or myselfat DSN 487-2265 if you have any questions., 

I 

and Testing Br 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

10 Sep 97 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPRSO 

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

U.S. AIR FORCE B 

1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7  

SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting his records be corrected to reflect 

he medically retired from the Air Force with all entitled benefits and privileges. 
Applicant states he deserves to be listed as retired since he planned to stay in the military 
until time to retire. 

Basis for Request.  Applicant feels his reading disability prevented him from 

testing well and the military knew of this disability and did nothing to help. 

Facts. 

a.  Applicant enlisted into the Air Force on 13 Mar 86 for 4 years, with a 

projected date of separation (DOS) of 12 Mar 90. 

b.  On 28 Feb 89, applicant applied for a career job reservation (CJR) with 

an expiration date of 13 Mar 90. 

c.  Applicant reenlisted on 15 Dec 89 for 6 years, giving him a projected 

DOS of 14 Dec 95. 

d.  Applicant extended his DOS of 14 Dec 95 for 3 months on 29 Aug 95 

to permit separation at his High Year of Tenure (HYT) date of 14 Mar 96. 

Discussion. 

a.  Applicant was released from the Air Force on 14 Mar 96 for HYT, 
having failed promotion to Staff Sergeant (E-5) after serving 10 years and 2 days on 
active duty.  He contends that his failure to be promoted stems from an alleged reading 
disability and requests medical retirement and entitlement to retired benefits and 
pri vi1 ege s . 

b.  If the applicant’s medical condition at the time of separation was 
questionable, the medical treatment facility (MTF) should have sent the case to the 
Medical Evaluation Board (MED), HQ AFPCDPAMM for review. 

c.  Title 10, United States Code, Section 8914 allows the Secretary of the 
Air Force, upon the member’s request, to retire an enlisted member of the Air Force who 
has at least 20, but less than 30, years of service computed under Section 8925.  Because 
the applicant had only served 10 years 2 days of service at the time of his release from 
active duty, he was not retirement eligible. 

Recommendation.  Denial.  There were no injustices or irregularities that occurred 

with applicant’s release fiom active duty processing. 

A 

1 7  

1  fjetirement ops Section 
J I 

Directorate of Personnel Program Management 

16 Jun 97 
97-00726 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  BCMR Medical Consultant 

1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor 
Andrews AFB MD  20762-7002 

SUBJEC 

ry Records 

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

findings, conclusions and recommendations. 

REQUESTED ACTION:  Applicant was released from the Air Force on 14 Mar 96 for 
Reduction in Force, having failed promotion to E-5 after serving I O  years and 2 days on 
active duty.  He contends that his failure to be promoted stems from an alleged reading 
disability and requests medic&  retirement and entitlement to retired benefits and 
"privledges" . 

FACTS: Supporting applicant's contention, he furnishes a copy of an undated letter 
from a course he was attending (date, place and character of which are unknown) from 
which he was disenrolled for substandard performance on phase testing which an 
Academic Review Board felt was due to his "poor reading skills".  Contrarily, his EPR of 
12 March 90 states he graduated 5'h in his class from the NCO Preparatory School in 
Sep 89, an accomplishment that would have required good reading and study skills. 
Nowhere in submitted records is found any reference to his having enrolled in remedial 
reading classes for his alleged disability.  Finding no evidence to suggest that he asked 
for or received help with this deficiency, this reviewer can only surmise that none was 
sought. 

DISCUSSION: Applicant's service years were rewarded with performance reports 

(EPRs) reflecting excellence in his work in every instance.  His duty as an aircraft 
mechanic would have required completion of technical training and absorption of 
volumes of information required for his work in order to achieve the proficiency reflected 
in these EPRs. If his reported reading deficiency was sufficient to cause him to fail 
written examinations, it seems highly unlikely he could have finished so high in his NCO 
Preparatory School class and not have been identified for STEP Promotion 
recommendation or other help to achieve his goals.  Nowhere does this reviewer find 
any other reference to this situation than in his submitted letter mentioned above. 
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 36-321 2.  Reasons for discharge and 
discharge proceedings 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. 

Evidence of record shows that while the applicant did have some medical problems 
while on active duty, none of them was of sufficient severity to justify a finding of unfit. 

Evidence of record establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was 

medically qualified for continued active duty, that the reason for his separation was 
proper, and that no error or injustice occurred in this case. 

RECOMMENDATION:  The BCMR Medical  Consultant is of the opinion that no 

change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied.  , 

FREDERICK W.  HORNICK, Col. USAF, MC, FS 
Chief, Medical Consultant, BCMR 
Medical Advisor SAF Personnel Council