RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01140
INDEX CODE: 110.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty), Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, be changed to
disability.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The 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 BCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed this application and indicates
that the reason for discharge should be changed to Medical Disability
Discharge without entitlement to disability separation pay, with
appropriate SPD and reenlistment codes applied. The applicant is
entitled to continued treatment in the DVA system with changes in
disability compensation occurring as circumstances warrant.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, also reviewed this
application and states that a thorough review of this case file
revealed no errors or injustice that would merit a change to his
military records to reflect that he was granted a disability discharge
under Title 10 USC. The applicant has not submitted any material or
documentation to show that he was unfit due to a physical disability
under the provisions of Chapter 61, Title 10, USC, at the time of his
involuntary discharge. Therefore, they recommend denial of
applicant’s request.
A complete copy of their Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 10 September 1999, copies of the Air Force evaluations were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice warranting a change to
applicant’s narrative reason for separation. After reviewing the
evidence of record we agree with the BCMR Medical Consultant who
states that the applicant had no history of problems prior to entering
the military that could conceivably relate to any such condition, and
it appears that he suffered an injury that was acute and unrelated to
any constitutional problem. The Medical Consultant also states that a
more appropriate action for the medical boards to have taken would
have been to find the applicant unfit for further military service
under provisions of AFI 36-3212 and AFI 48-123 and discharge him with
a 10% disability for Right Sternoclavicular Joint Injury, VASRD Code
5203. Since the applicant had less than six months of active duty, he
is not eligible for separation pay. In view of the foregoing, and in
an effort to offset any possibility of an injustice, we recommend the
applicant's records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. On 21 July 1991, he was found unfit to perform the duties
of his office, rank, grade or rating by reason of physical disability
incurred while entitled to receive basic pay; that the diagnosis in
his case was right sternoclavicular joint injury, VA code 5203, rated
at 10 percent; that the disability may be permanent; that the
disability was not due to intentional misconduct or willful neglect,
that the disability was not incurred during a period of unauthorized
absence; that the disability was not incurred during a period of
national emergency; and that the disability was not received in line
of duty as a direct result of armed conflict.
b. He was not discharged on 22 July 1991 under the provisions
of AFR 39-10, for failure to meet physical standards for enlistment,
but rather, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 35-4,
Disability/No Severance Pay, and issued a Reenlistment Eligibility
(RE) code of “2Q” and a Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code of
“JFP.”
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 30 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Gregory W. Den Herder, Member
Mr. Edward C. Koenig, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Mar 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 10 Jun 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 16 Aug 99.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 Sep 99.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 99-01140
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. 21 July 1991, he was found unfit to perform
the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating by reason of physical
disability incurred while entitled to receive basic pay; that the
diagnosis in his case was right sternoclavicular joint injury, VA code
5203, rated at 10 percent; that the disability may be permanent; that
the disability was not due to intentional misconduct or willful
neglect, that the disability was not incurred during a period of
unauthorized absence; that the disability was not incurred during a
period of national emergency; and that the disability was not received
in line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict..
b. He was not discharged on 22 July 1991 under the
provisions of AFR 39-10, for failure to meet physical standards for
enlistment, but rather, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR
35-4, Disability/No Severance Pay, and issued a Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) code of “2Q” and a Separation Program Designator
(SPD) Code of “JFP.”
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1988-02974-2
INDEX CODE: 108.04 AFBCMR BC-1988-02974-2 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. CATHLYNN B. SPARKS Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 16 Mar...
Based on the above, the Board majority believes the applicant should have been found unfit by reason of physical disability. He was not released from active duty on 15 August 1978, but was permanently retired by reason of physical disability, effective 16 August 1978. He was not released from active duty on 15 August 1978, but was permanently retired by reason of physical disability, effective 16 August 1978.
However, after a review of the available evidence, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to raise doubt whether the accident occurred as a result of the applicant’s intentional misconduct or willful neglect. While he did not interview the applicant, as required by regulation and resulted in a determination that the investigation was legally insufficient, based on his discussion with the applicant’s first sergeant, he choose to believe the applicant’s version of the event. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-00872
However, should the AFBCMR determine the medical condition warrants a disability discharge with severance pay, the appropriate RE code would be “2Q - Personnel medically retired or discharged.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 January 2004 for review and response within 30 days. ...
Panel Chair Attachments: 1. Ltr, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd May 25, 1999 2. Ltr, AFPC/DPPD, dtd Jul 8, 1999, w/Atch INDEX CODE: 108.01, 108.02, 108.04, 128.08, 110.02 AFBCMR 99-00366 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03941
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant had an existing prior to service (EPTS) eye condition that was waived at the time of his enlistment and he completed his four-year term of service receiving an honorable discharge. His eye condition was noted in his enlistment, periodic, and separation medical examinations, and there was no evidence...
Probably the most important evidence is the police report, which states the roads were wet and that applicant’s car hit the other vehicle prior to reaching Pierce Road intersection. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force opinions and contends that the entire thrust of this application is to show that the LOD IO did not...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01135
Counsel states that the applicant was not separated because of a pre-existing condition, which was aggravated by active duty service. The majority of the Board believes that the BCMR Medical Consultant’s findings provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the injury to the applicant’s elbow while on active duty was a new and distinct injury rather than EPTS. Given that the applicant disclosed her previous elbow injury during her enlistment physical and was given a waiver, the majority of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02386
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has medical documentation stating that he never had asthma and chronic scrotal pain that does not exist. On 17 October 2002, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be separated from active duty service for physical disability under the provisions of 10 USC 1203, with severance pay. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00019
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve (AFR) on 28 Jul 75. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. Exhibit G. Letter, Counsel, dated 17 Sep 09.