AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
DOCKET NO: 98-00386
IN THE MATTER OF:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SEP 1 7
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
Applicant requests that he be reinstated in his unit in the Air
Force Reserves. 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).
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 opinion 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 documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a
personal appearance, with or without legal counsel, would not
have materially added to that understanding. 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. Henry C. Saunders, Mr. Joseph G.
Diamond, and Ms. Peggy E. Gordon considered this application on
3 September 1998 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statup'e, 10, U#.C. 1552.
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion, w/atchs
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
1
Chair
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE RESERVE COMMAND
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFRC/DPM
155 2nd St
Robins AFB GA 31098-1635
SUBJECT: Correction of Military Record
request for reinstatement to his unit and
1. I have reviewedl
request based upon his dis
recommend that th
of Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus. HQ AFRC/SG review
request and determined his medical condition still disqualifies him for military duty.
2. If you have any questions, please contact
Acting Chief, Military@ersonnel Division
Directorate of Personnel
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE RESERVE
MEMORANDUM FOR DPMB
FROM: SGP
SUBJECT: Report of Medical Examination
27 Mar 98
1. The member wants to be reinstated to the Reserve program to continue Reserve participation.
He does not dispute his disqualifying diagnosis of Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus. He also
does not provide any documentation which would call into question this diagnosis.
2. From a medical standpoint, this individual is still medically disqualified for military duty.
The new process in place now requires AFRCDPKV to make a “fit” determination on all
medical disqualification actions. Because of this new process, this AFBCMR should be
reviewed and appropriate comments made on whether or not this individual is “fit” for military
duty.
3. For the above reasons we feel DP should respond to this AFBCMR with the SG input that
subject individual remains medically disqualified because of a diagnosis of Insulin Dependent
Diabetes Mellitus.
ALAN B. BERG, Lt Col, USAF, MC, SFS
Chief, Aerospace Medicine Branch
Directorate, Health Services
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03382
Applicant discusses the DVA’s determination regarding his medical condition. In 2001, over 6 years following the applicant’s discharge, the DVA added Adult Onset Diabetes to the list of diseases associated with Agent Orange exposure for purposes of granting presumptive service connected disability compensation under Title 38. Title 38, Section 1116 is the law that provides for the DVA to grant service connected disability benefits for certain diseases that develop after discharge that may...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01506
________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was found to be physically disqualified for continued military service in the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR). There is no line of duty determination on file with their office and there is no evidence provided indicating his condition was incurred or aggravated by military service. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01432
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A. No other disqualifying condition was ever presented to AFRC/SG for review/adjudication. The AFRC/SG has conducted an exhaustive review of the applicants case and we are in agreement with the expressed rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03709
There was no disabling or disqualifying issue; therefore no requirement for a Medical Evaluation Board existed. AFI 36-3212 allows for a reserve member to be retained in the reserves and returned to duty even though he may have a medical condition that requires some restrictions. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered BCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03709 in Executive Session on 28 June 2012 and on 11 July 2012, under the...
The applicant’s responses and the state senator’s letter are provided at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ USAF/JAG notes the applicant is correct that [paragraph 11] of his contract did not obligate him to repay the costs of his education. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-01034A
Since there was no provision of law that permits receipt of retired pay unless this requirement has been met, the Board agreed with the Air Force evaluation and found no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. A copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. Applicant, with counsel, has submitted an application, dated 16 June 1998, requesting reconsideration of his earlier request to grant an additional two years of Reserve service to be eligible to receive Reserve...
Since there was no provision of law that permits receipt of retired pay unless this requirement has been met, the Board agreed with the Air Force evaluation and found no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. A copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. Applicant, with counsel, has submitted an application, dated , requesting reconsideration of his earlier request to grant an additional two years of Reserve service to be eligible to receive Reserve retired pay at...
Since there was no provision of law that permits receipt of retired pay unless this requirement has been met, the Board agreed with the Air Force evaluation and found no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. A copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. Applicant, with counsel, has submitted an application, dated 16 June 1998, requesting reconsideration of his earlier request to grant an additional two years of Reserve service to be eligible to receive Reserve...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | bc-2011-04080
In view of the DVA rating decisions and the severity of her condition, the disability rating awarded by the Air Force should have been higher and she should have been retired by reason of physical disability. 60 percent – Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits to a diabetic care provider, plus complications that would not be compensable if...
On 31 July 1996, HQ ARPC/SGS recommended the applicant be administratively discharged for medical disqualification, i.e., neurological condition with residual speech disturbance, and that he was not eligible for disability processing under the provisions of AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and AFMPC/DPMA Separations. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director, Health Services, HQ ARPC/SG, advises that major...