B RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01921
INDEX CODE 106.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 1967 Under-Other-Than-Honorable-Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for
the good of the service be changed to an honorable medical discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error
and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is
at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached
at Exhibit C.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this appeal and indicates the
evidence of record suggests that the multiple instances of absences
without leave (AWOL) committed by the applicant between April and June
1967, when he had the capacity to know right from wrong, were the
reason for the type of discharge he received. Clearly at the time of
his discharge, the applicant was not found
unfit for duty and medical discharge/retirement was appropriately not
considered in his separation processing. Therefore, denial is
recommend.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
The Chief, Special Actions, BCMR Advisories, HQ AFPC/DPPD, also
evaluated the case and explains the difference between the military
and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability systems.
Although the two agencies use the same rating schedule, the military
only rates those which make a person unfit for continued military
service with the DVA rates medical conditions connected to the
member’s military service. A thorough review of this case file reveals
no errors or irregularities that would justify the changing of the
applicant’s records to reflect a disability discharge. The Chief
concurs with the Medical Consultant advisory, which fully explains the
medical aspects of this case. The applicant has not submitted any
material or documentation to show he was unfit due to a disability
under the provisions of Title 10, USC, at the time of his voluntary
discharge from active duty. Therefore, denial is recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 28 December 1998 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After a thorough review
of the documents pertaining to this appeal, we are not persuaded the
applicant should be honorably discharged for medical disability.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the evidence of record and the rationale
provided by the Air Force. We therefore agree with the recommendations
of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of
having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above
and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice;
that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 27 April 1999 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiweicz, Panel Chair
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,
dated 4 Nov 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 14 Dec 98.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Dec 98.
PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s nephew provided a statement, which the applicant signed. We note that HQ AFPC/DPPD disagreed with the Medical Consultant’s recommendation for a 30% disability retirement. However, while he may now have or may ultimately be given a higher disability rating by the DVA, the Air Force disability system stipulates that...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00067 COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His release from active duty, with the Special Separation Bonus (SSB), be changed to a medical retirement. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, USAF Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, also evaluated the case and verifies that the applicant was never referred to or considered by the Air...
On 21 January 1997, the AMW commander recommended the RILO request be denied and, if accepted, the applicant be given a UOTHC discharge. The applicant was discharged with a UOTHC discharge effective 10 January 1998, resignation for the good of the service in lieu of CM for other offense, after 9 years, 4 months and 29 days of active duty. The SAFPC found that the depression was not the cause of the misconduct for which the CM charges were pending but was, rather, a result of the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states that following separation, the applicant was seen in the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) system where a follow-up x-ray actually showed a healing stress fracture of the left tibial metaphysis and he was awarded 10% disability based on this finding. Had a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) been accomplished with the proper diagnosis (stress fracture of the...
He was hospitalized for 30 days in May 1966 with a diagnosis of Agranulocytosis and he should have received a medical discharge from the Air Force. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his honorable discharge should be changed to a medical discharge; that he receive the award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM); that the Report of Medical Examination, Standard Form 88, dated 27 November 1967, should be corrected to...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00206
He was hospitalized for 30 days in May 1966 with a diagnosis of Agranulocytosis and he should have received a medical discharge from the Air Force. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his honorable discharge should be changed to a medical discharge; that he receive the award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM); that the Report of Medical Examination, Standard Form 88, dated 27 November 1967, should be corrected to...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02186 INDEX CODE 108.01 108.03 108.07 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records reflect he was medically retired for tonsil and prostate cancer and that the prostate cancer was in the line of duty (LOD) as a result of armed conflict and/or instrumentality of war. The remaining relevant...
The medical record clearly shows that while the applicant may have been treated for various medical conditions while on active duty, none were serious enough to render her unfit for further military service under the provisions of disability law and policy. In this respect, we note that while the applicant may have been treated for various medical conditions while on active duty, none were serious enough at the time of her discharge to render her unfit for further military service. The...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-00995
The medical record clearly shows that while the applicant may have been treated for various medical conditions while on active duty, none were serious enough to render her unfit for further military service under the provisions of disability law and policy. In this respect, we note that while the applicant may have been treated for various medical conditions while on active duty, none were serious enough at the time of her discharge to render her unfit for further military service. The...
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied (Exhibit C). Prior to that date, an evaluation of 30% was assigned for severe, frequent attacks. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, I believe the applicant’s medical condition at the time of his retirement warrants a higher disability rating.