AIR FORCE  BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECOR RfJG 2 5  1998 

RECORD O F   PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01279 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

Applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect that 
he retired after 32 years of service, rather than discharged with 
entitlement  to  severance  pay  on  19  Sep  69. 
Applicant's 
submission is at Exhibit A. 
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). 
Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. 

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 adequately 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 applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been 
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or without  counsel  will 
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issues  involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

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 Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, 
and Mr. Henry Romo, Jr. considered this application on 11 Aug  98 
in accordance with  the provisions  of Air  Force  Instruction 36- 
2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552. 

DOUGLAS J. HEAD'Y 
Panel Chair 

Exhibits : 
A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinion 
D. 
E.  Applicant's Response 

SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion 

- 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 

13 Jan98 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM: 

HQ AFPCDPPD 
550 C Street West S_te 06 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4708 

SUBJECT: 

ction of Military Record 

REQUESTED ACTION:  Applicant requests that his involuntary disability discharge in 

1969 be set aside and he receive a service retirement. 

FACTS:  Applicant was involuntarily released from the Air Force on 4 Apr 68 for 

physical disability under the provisions of AFM 35-4, and placed on the Temporary Disability 
Retired List (TDRL).  Member completed three years, ten months, and fifteen days of active duty 
on his initial enlistment.  He remained on the TDRL until he was Discharged With Severance 
Pay (DWSP) with a 10 percent disability rating on 19 Sep 69. 

DISCUSSION:  Thev+purpose of the military disability system is to maintain a fit and vital 
force by separating members who are unable to perform the duties of their grade, office, rank or 
rating.  Members who are separated or retired for reason of physical disability may be eligible, if 
otherwise qualified, for certain disability compensations.  Eligibility for disability processing is 
established by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when that board finds that the member may 
not be qualified for continued military service.  The decision to conduct an MEB is made by the 
medical treatment facility providing care to the member. 

An MEB on the applicant was convened at Scott AFB, Illinois on 1 Mar 68 and referred 
to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  On 12 Mar 68, the IPEB found the member 
unfit for continued military service for a diagnosis "Non specific ulcerative colitis, universal; 
associated with iron deficiency anemia and toxic megacolon" and recommended member be 
placed on the TDRL with a 30 percent disability rating.  Applicant agreed with the findings and 
recommendations of the IPEB on 15 Mar 68.  On 20 Mar 68, officials within the Office of the 
Secretary of the Air Force directed that the applicant be placed on the TDRL.  This was effective 
5 Apr 68. 

While on TDRL, member received a periodic physical evaluation at Scott AFB, Illinois 

on 7 Jul69.  On 14 Aug 69, based on his updated medical evaluation, the IPEB found his 
condition had improved somewhat (Ulcerative Colitis, inactive since February 68), found him 
unfit. for continued military service, and recommended his DWSP with a disability rating of 10 

-- 

a 

. ..  1c 

percent.  On 19 Aug 69, the member was provided a memorandum which included a copy of the 
medical evaluation and an AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF 
Physical Evaluation Board.  This memorandum clearly referred to Items 9 and 10 of the AF 
Form 356 which reflected the IPEB's recommendation for DWSP with a 10 percent compensable 
disability rating.  The member was afforded three choices to respond to the IPEB's findings and 
recommendations.  The choices included (1)  Concur with recommended findings, (2) Do not 
concur with the recommended findings and request appearance before the Formal PEB, or (3) Do 
not concur with the recommended findings, waive a formal hearing, and submit my written 
rebuttal.  On 21 Aug 69, member concurred with the IPEB's findings and subsequently, officials 
within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the applicant be removed from 
the TDRL, and be discharged with severance pay and a 10 percent compensable disability rating 
under the provisions of 10 USC 1210. Member was DWSP on 19 Sep 69. 

A thorough review of the AFBCMR file revealed no errors or irregularities in the 

processing of the applicant's case within the disability evaluation system.  He was appropriately 
found unfit for continued military service and properly rated under federal disability rating 
guidelines.  The member was afforded all rights to which he was entitled under disability law and 
departmental policy. 

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend denial of the applicant's request.  The applicant 

has not submitted any material or documentation to show he was inappropriately rated or 
processed under the military disability evaluation system. 

n r 

EPHEN  . C  MIOLA, Colonel, USAF 

/Chief, 

Physical Disability Division 

Directorate of Pers Prog Management