AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .
. .
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02908
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his narrative reason for separation be
changed to reflect permanent disability retirement. 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 B). The advisory opinion was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit C ) .
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 Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Mr. Kenneth L.
Reinertson, and Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., considered this application
on 28 Jan 99 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603
and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
I
Panel Chair
U
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Advisory Opinion
C. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER
RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPD
550 C Street West Ste 06
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4708
SUBJECT:
orrection of Military Rec
21 Oct 98
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant requests issuance of a new DD Form 2 14, Certificate of Release
or Discharge from Active Duty, reflecting narrative reason for separation as permanent disability retirement.
FACTS: Applicant was involuntarily relieved from active duty on 18 Dec 95, for physical disability
under the provisions of AFI 36-3212. He was subsequently placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List
(TDRL) until he received a permanent disability retirement on 28 May 97. Member completed seventeen
years, eight months, and nineteen days of active duty.
DISCUSSION: At the time of the member’s reiease from active duty, he was furnished a DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The purpose of the DD Form 214 is to document
active duty service. Member’s DD Form 2 14 states that he was released from active duty on 18 Dec 95 and
placed on the TDRL effective 19 Dec 95. Member remained on the TDRL until 28 May 97, when he received
a permanent disability retirement. Applicant was permanently retired on Department of the Air Force (DAF)
special order ACD-1064 dated 8 May 97. Records reflect that he was provided a copy of the permanent
disability retirement order in a HQ AFPCLDPPDS memorandum also dated 8 May 97. In cases when
member’s are removed from the TDRL, a new DD Form 214 is not appropriate or issued.
The member should be able to obtain dependent identification cards (ID) upon presentation of this
retirement order to any military installation where IDS are issued.
CONCLUSION: To assist the member in his request, we have attached a copy of DAF special order
ACD- 1064, dated 8 May 97, which removed him from the TDRL with a permanent disability retirement.
, Colonel, USAF
Chief, Physic4 Disability Division
Directorate of Pers Prog Management
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 purpose of the DD Form 2 14 is document active duty service. CONCLUSION: To assist the member in his attempt to combine his “military service time with his federal time”, we have attached a copy of the member’s last DD Form 2 14 with a copy of DAF special order ACD- 1562, dated 5 May 93, which removed him from the TDRL with a...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). At the time she was placed on TDRL, promotion testing was being conducted for the 96E6 cycle. Although she is requesting supplemental promotion consideration to TSgt for the 97E6 cycle, she was ineligible for consideration because she was not on active duty.
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...
The results of his latest MRI show that he has more than degenerative arthritis. In a 30 Jan 98 TDRL evaluation, an orthopedic surgeon noted the applicant had continued symptoms after the operation with no improvement in either his back or leg pain. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his first letter, the applicant indicates he did agree with the findings of the...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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 warrant corrective action. On 6 Dec 96, officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS AUG 1 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 9 8 - 0 0 0 3 0 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES Applicant is the widow of a former service member who requests that the former service member's disability retired grade be changed from captain to major. AI1 promotions to the grade of major and above must be confirmed by the Senate before an officer can be promoted. requests that her FACTS: Applicant entered into the military...
On 29 Jun 98, the applicant provided additional documentation through his senator and requests the Board reconsider his requests and award him 100% disability retirement from the Air Force and change his DOR to 15 Dec 81 (see Exhibit S). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, SAF/PC, reviewed applicant’s request and indicated that all evidence of record points to the applicant having been...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1995-02003B
On 29 Jun 98, the applicant provided additional documentation through his senator and requests the Board reconsider his requests and award him 100% disability retirement from the Air Force and change his DOR to 15 Dec 81 (see Exhibit S). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, SAF/PC, reviewed applicant’s request and indicated that all evidence of record points to the applicant having been...
The Statement of Understanding, dated 14 November 1995 indicates that upon promotion to the grade of captain, applicant would incur a one-year active duty service commitment (ADSC) from the effective date of promotion. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Officer Promotion Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, states that the applicant was denied promotion to the grade of captain due to her inability to complete the one-year active duty...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The decisions of the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB), dated 29 Jan 98, and the decision of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC), dated 3 Apr 98, are contrary to law and regulation and violate “minimum concepts of basic fairness.” When all the evidence is considered, the Board should reach the decision that she is unfit for further military service and should be permanently retired, with...