4
IN THE MATTER OF:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
FEB24
DOCKET NO: 98-01484
1999
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests medical
at Exhibit A.
retirement. Applicant's submission is
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 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. Martha Maust, Mr. Frederick A. Beaman
111, and Ms. Patricia D. Vestal considered this application on
accordance with the provisions -of Air Force
15 December 1998 in
statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing
ne1 Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE RESERVE COMMAND
MEMORANDUM FOR SAFMIBR
FROM: HQ AFRCISGPA
155 2nd Street
Robins AFB GA 31098-1635
SUBJECT: AFBCMR
9 July, 1998
1. Approval of subject individua1:s request is not recommended.
2. The letter from subject individual’s private physician dated 3 May 98 indicates that
individual’s medical condition, Arteriosclerotic Coronary Artery Disease (ASCAD) was
aggravated by an argument between member and his then unit commander. That he became
symptomatic is not in dispute, however, there is no indication that there was any worsening of
the member’s ASCAD nor was there any documented myocardial damage. Hence with no
permanent and irreversible damage secondary to the arguments, member’s ASCAD remains
EPTS LOD N/A.
3. In conclusion, I do not concur with the conclusions made by subject individual’s civilian
physician. The appropriate actions were taken by the Air Force Reserve in subject member’s
case and he is not entitled to disability processing.
ALAN B. BERG, Lt Col, USAF, MC, SFS
Chief, Aerospace Medicine Branch
Directorate, Health Services
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2000-00132-3
The Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit P. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel requests the AFBCMR recognize the errors by the Air Force, decline to render a further finding due to lack of jurisdiction, return the military record file for proper correction and a complete physical examination by the Air Force, and report its actions to the USCFC. Counsel states the Air Force has conceded that...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). This provides members who are discharged for physical disqualification the opportunity to reenter military service if their medical condition is no longer d i s q u w See H AFRCRSOO Memorandum at Attachment 1 .) s a not eligible for a medical retirement with pay because her disqualifjing medical 3. m condition was found to not have...
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. 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).
His oncologist has stated that, had a testicular exam been done in October 1993, the cancer would have been diagnosed then. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Physical Education Branch, HQ AFPC/DPAME, reviewed the case and states that for the period 1986-1994, while in Medical School on HPSP Scholarship and while completing his residency, the applicant was in an inactive, obligated Reserve status. A copy of the complete Air...
He be released from his PALACE CHASE contract and resignation from the Air Force. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement and other documentation Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, PALACE CHASE, HQ AFPC/DPPRSR, reviewed this application and states that applicant denies knowledge of recoupment action prior to separation; however, on 8 May 1997, he signed a...
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be considered for promotion to the grade of Colonel, Air Force Reserve, by a Special Review Board; and, that his records be evaluated in comparison with the records of officers who were and were not selected by the Fiscal Years 1996 and 97 Reserve of the Air Force Colonel Selection Boards. Electronic Mailgram,...
The appropriate Air Force off ices 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 and counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). RECOMMENDATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application shpuld be denied.
A complete copy of the HQ AFRC/DPM letter, with attachment, is at Exhibit M. A copy of the HQ AFRC/DPM letter, with attachment, was forwarded to the applicant’s counsel on 23 September 1999 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: Inasmuch as the applicant has been afforded due process through a new, appropriately conducted new PDRB, and that this PDRB’s findings with respect to his medical condition...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00928
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DP, reviewed this application and states that at the present time, under the ROPMA, they do not have the authority to hold SSBs for PV promotions. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include the Air Force...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DP, reviewed this application and states that at the present time, under the ROPMA, they do not have the authority to hold SSBs for PV promotions. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include the Air Force...