SUL 2 1
A I R FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORC OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01189
COYNSEL: NONE
HEARING BESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his records be corrected ‘io reflect that,
on 9 June 1982, he declined to partxipate in the Feserve Component
Survivor Benefit Plari (RCSBP; program. Applicant’s submission is
at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force o f f i c e evaluated applicarit ‘ s request ana
provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit Z
The advisory opinion was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D ) .
.
The AFBCMR requested an additional review ana corruwnts addressing
applicant’s request \Zxhibit E,
F c r c e s f f i c e
re-examined applicant‘ s applicatior and reacfirrnez their p r e v i o i l s
recommendation that the applicatizr be denied ( E x h L b l t F .
T r. 0
additional evaluation was forwarded to applicant f c r re-Jie+; ar,d
comment (Exhibit G ’ i .
Applicant’s response to the additional
evaluation is at Exhibit H.
The appropriate
After careful consiaeratio~ cf applicant's r e q u e s t
tne
available evidence of record, bje find i r i s u f f i c i c n t eviaence of
elrror or i n 2 u s t i c e to warrart csrrective action.
T h e f d c z s ana
o p i r i i o n s stated in :ne adviser). c p - r l o n s appear to 3e b a s e a zr. t h e
evidence of record and h a v e n c - been adequatCi;:- renucted bl-
applicant .
applirant ‘v?ic s cienipu riai?ts
to waich entitled, a9propriate r ? ~ > ~ - a t i o n s were 1 ~ 3 t f o i l o w e a ,
c i i
approprizte standards were not a p p l i e d , we f1r.d no h a s i s tc zisturb
the existing record. According;;-, appLicanE’F requesc is denied.
A ~ s e n t persuasive e-::cler.ce
a n a
However, Public Law (PL) 105-85 (effective 17 May 1998) provides an
opportunity for retirees to ter-xinate participat2on in t h e SBF
beginning on the second anniversary of their receipt of retired
p a y . For further information, applicant should contact the Retiree
Services Branch (AFPCJDPPTR) at 1-800-531-7502.
T h e Board staff 1s directed tc i n f z r r n applxar,t of t h i s decisioc.
Applicant should also be informed tnat this decisi->ri 1s finGI and
w i l l only be reconsiderea upor. t h e presentation ( f new :-pieT,’ant
eviaence whych was not reasonabl, avaiiable ai t h e
t i ~ c trip
application was f i l m .
Members of the Board, Mr. H e n q C. Saunders, Mrs. Barbara A.
Westgate, and Mr. David C. Van Gzlsaeck considered this application
on 16 July 1998, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603 and the
C. SAUNDERS
P ne1 Chalr
H P Y
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Reccrds
C. Advisory O p i n i o n
D e
E. AFBCMR Ltr dtd 20 Aug 97
F. Additional Advisory Opinlon
G.
H. Applicant's Response
SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Adc:z:rral
SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding AdxT:sprJ7 Opinion
Advisory Opinlon
The facts surrounding applicar-z ' s separation f r o x the Air Naticrdl Guard and A i r Force Reserve are m k n o w n inr.srnucli as the discharge correspondence is not available. T h e appropriate Air Force o f f I C E ?--aluated applicant Is request ar,d z 1 p r c m i d e a ar, advisory o p i n i s a t h e Board recommerLdir~: t h e was application be denied (Exhicx 13 . AvaAable Master Personnel Recgl-3s C. Advisory Opinion D. E. Applicant I s Response F. AFBCMR L t r to Applicant, d t...
Applicact's s u b x i s s i o ~ is at Exhibit Ti. The appropriate Air Force off;re evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory o p i n i o r . Appiicant's resporse to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. l2ursuar.t ts the 2 o a r d ' s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigatlon, Washington, D .
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: - The AFBCMR Chief Medical Consultant reviewed this application and is of the opinion that no change In the records is warranted and the application should be d e n i m . *at Based on the medical evidence provided, the IPEB found her condition nad stabilized and recommended thar she be removed from the TDRL and permanently retired w i t h a 40% disability rating. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated Exhibit D .
A I R FORCE BOARD FOX ZCRRECTION OF :v A C L ~ V E S t a t u s List from t h e K e t i r e d Reser-T,-e ana a s s i g n e d t o ar, a p p r o p r i a t e Cztegory A o r B ~ G X ~ M L A p p h c a n t ’ s submission IS at E x h i b i t A. The appropriste Air Force of?::? ?vallJstec a p p l x a r L t ’ 5 1 - q u e s t ana p r o v i d e d an a d v i s o r y o p i ~ x x zo the EDard -ecommending t h e a p p l i c a t i o n be d e n i e d (ExhibiL : .
After his return tc the United States, he inquired about a request for the 30LC ana was promptly informed t h a t the Replacement Depot had no authority to initiate such a request and since he was being processed f o r release from active duty, there was no way such a request could be considered. It is no longer possible to ascertain whether or not the applicant was eligible for an additional decoratiorA for aerial achievements. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and...
discovered the absence of an AF E'orrr 63 in his records upon receipt of that RIP; however, that ;s irzelevant to The issue that h e i n c u r e d the A D S C . However, we do not find his uncorroborated contentions, in and by themselves, sufficiently compelling to conclude that he unwittingly incurred an ADSC for training he would not have accepted had he been aware of the ADSC prior to entering the training. Exhibit B.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit F , The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, review the application and states that records clearly show the applicant was fit for duty through all the years of his active duty service, and, while having some residual problems relating to his Korean War experiences, he was well and able zo perform his dEties up to the time of h i s retirement, He is being compensated appropriately by the DVA for his service-connected, but not unfitting,...
The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant fcz- xe'~iew and response (Exhibit D). After careful conslderatiop CT applicant's request and ti-le avallahle evldence of record, ~A-C find insufficient evidence of error or in7ustice to warrant zx-rectlve action. Accordingly, applicant's request 1s denied.
Applicant? The appropriate Air Force off ices evaluated applicant I s request and provided advisory oplnions to the Board recommending the application be deniec (Exhibit C). The advisory opir2ions were forwarded to the applicart for review and response (Exhibit D1.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.