RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
FEB 2 4 1999
AIR FORCE
IN THE MATTER OF:
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
DOCKET NO: 97-03575
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
Applicant requests that her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2Q be changed to allow
eligibility to reenter the military. By amendment, she requests an age waiver be approved. RE
code 2 4 is defined as “Personnel retired or discharged under AFR 35-4.” Applicant’s submission
is at Exhibit A.
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). Applicant’s response to the
advisory opinions 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 w-t
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 issue(s)
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 fmal 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. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, and
Mrs. Margaret A. Zook considered this application on 5 January 1999 in accordance with the
provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant’s DD Forms 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D. SAFMIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
E. Applicant’s Response
DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R FORCE
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
2 5 JUL 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPClDPPAES
550 C Street West Ste 10
Randolph AFB TX 78 1 50-47 12
We conducted a review of applicant’s case file. The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE)
Code “2Q’ is correct. The type of discharge drove assignment of the RE code.
.
KATHLEEN R. LOPEZ, MSgt, USAF
Special Programs and BCMR Manager
Dir of Personnel Program Management
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: BCMR Medical Consultant
1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002
8 July 1998
97-03575
Applicant's entire case file has been reviewed and is forwarded with the following findings,
conclusions and recommendations.
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant was separated with severance pay and 10% disability on
20 Mar 89 for bilateral stress fractures of lower legs after serving 8 months and 16 days on ac-
tive duty. She applies now to change her reentry code from "2Q" so as to be eligible to reenter
the military.
FACTS: The applicant met a Medical Evaluation Board on 10 Feb 89 after prolonged
treatment for stress phenomenon ("stress fractures") of her legs which had incapacitated her to
the point of being confined to desk work. Upon review by the Informal Physical Evaluation
Board on I 7 Feb 89, it was recommended that she be separated with 10% disability and sever-
ance pay to which she agreed and her separation followed. Because she had been medically
separated, her reentry code was appropriately assigned as "2Q". She now desires to change
this code so as to be able to return to military duty now that she has completed a bachelor's
degree in business administration.
DISCUSSION: A thorough review of submitted records shows that the applicant has con-
tinued to have problems with her legs ever since her separation, and as recently as 3 Jun 98,
she was seen for pain and swelling in the left knee at a VA facility. Other entries relate directly
to visits for evaluation of her service-connected "shin splints'' for which the VA has assigned a
rating of 20% disability, and which was confirmed last in April 1995. In addition, the applicant
has been treated in the early 1990s for bipolar mood disorder with lithium and more recently for
her overweight condition, all conditions that would disqualify her for entry to the Air Force were
she to have her request approved.
Contrary to what the applicant states in her request, the "2Q" code was not assigned simply
to prevent her immediate reenlistment, but rather to reflect the fact that she was separated with
an unfitting medical condition under provisions of AFR 35-4 and the disability evaluation sys-
tem. No inequity or impropriety is found in the actions that resulted in her medical separation,
and there is no reason to consider changing the appropriate reentry code assigned at the time
of the separation. Her numerous medical problems found in the DVA record review would pre-
clude entry to the military at this time, in any event.
.
Page 2
AFBCMR Case # 97-03575
RECOMMENDATION: While commending the applicant on her desire to return to the mili-
tary, the BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted
and the application should be denied.
mEDERICK W. HORNICK, Col., USAF, MC, FS
Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR
Medical Advisor SAF Personnel Council
Therefore, the applicant was issued a DD Form 214 for the 15-18 January 1991 period because it was in direct support of ODS/S. Since the injury she received while on active duty in 1991 caused her to be permanently retired for disability in 1995, she should have been placed on the TDRL in 1991 and not ordered to participate while disabled. 4 96-02626 A complete copy of the additional Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit H. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-02986
On 19 May 97, applicant was advised of her commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon her under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for her alleged misconduct in violation of Article 134 for the following offense: at or near McGuire AFB, on or about 29 Apr 97, being disorderly in that she engaged in a verbal tirade and threw a handful of dental instruments out a doorway. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On...
On 19 May 97, applicant was advised of her commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon her under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for her alleged misconduct in violation of Article 134 for the following offense: at or near McGuire AFB, on or about 29 Apr 97, being disorderly in that she engaged in a verbal tirade and threw a handful of dental instruments out a doorway. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . 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. The applicant is requesting his uncharacterized character of service be changed to honorable.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . 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. The applicant is requesting his uncharacterized character of service be changed to honorable.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1993-03005A
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 February 1999 for review and response within 30 days. However, as stated by the BCMR Medical Consultant, the applicant was appropriately evaluated and rated for the symptoms she presented at the time of discharge and at no time in the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) processing did she ever indicate any...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 February 1999 for review and response within 30 days. However, as stated by the BCMR Medical Consultant, the applicant was appropriately evaluated and rated for the symptoms she presented at the time of discharge and at no time in the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) processing did she ever indicate any...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03390 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: STEPHEN J. DUNN HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE On 21 April 1998, the Board considered and denied applicant's 11 July 1997 application requesting that (1) her uncharacterized discharge be changed to a medical discharge; (2) a referral to a Physical Evaluation Board...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03390
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03390 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: STEPHEN J. DUNN HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE On 21 April 1998, the Board considered and denied applicant's 11 July 1997 application requesting that (1) her uncharacterized discharge be changed to a medical discharge; (2) a referral to a Physical Evaluation Board...
Many evacuees who took an advance later received a waiver of one month's basic pay and did not have to repay the advance. DFAS-DE/FYCC EVALUATION: The Chief , Claims Branch, DFAS-DE/FYCC, evaluated this and confirms that the applicant was stationed at rom 10' November 1989 through 9 June 1991. was advanced $ 1991 while he was stationed a A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.