Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1995-00986A
Original file (BC-1995-00986A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                           ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  95-00986

                             COUNSEL:  None

                             HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE

On 18 July 1995, the Board considered the deceased former  service  member’s
son’s  5 March   1995   application   requesting   his   deceased   father’s
11 September 1956 Undesirable  Discharge  be  upgraded  to  honorable.   The
Board denied the application as untimely.  A complete copy of the Record  of
Proceedings is attached at Exhibit G.

On 12 February 1996, the deceased  member’s  wife  submitted  a  letter  and
additional  documentation  requesting  her  deceased  spouse’s  records   be
corrected to reflect a medical retirement.  (Exhibit H)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The  Chief,  Physical  Disability  Division,  Directorate   of   Pers   Prog
Management,  AFPC/DPPD,  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  the
service member’s medical records consistently reflect  those  of  a  healthy
young man.  The separation physical, dated 18 July 1956,  notes,  “Excessive
drinking overseas, 1952.  Is continuing  to  drink.   No  other  significant
illness or injury during current term  of  service  and  no  aggravation  of
preexisting conditions...Examinee is qualified for separation.”  This  entry
indicates that the physician found no reason to recommend an MEB,  and  that
the service member was physically fit for continued military  service.   The
service member’s drinking problem did not  render  him  unfit  for  military
service even though it may have affected  his  judgment  or  attitude  which
resulted in his involuntary separation from the service.  Alcoholism is  not
a ratable or compensable condition listed in  the  VA  Schedule  for  Rating
Disabilities.  Further, the records do not show that the service member  had
any seizures while on active duty which may have brought into  question  his
fitness  for  continued  military  service.   In  fact,  on  the  separation
physical survey, the service member answered  “no”  to  the  question,  “Had
Epilepsy (fits).” Likewise,  he  apparently  did  not  display  symptoms  of
psychoses
that  would  have  promoted  further  evaluation  leading  to   a   physical
disability discharge or retirement.  The case file does not support  any  of
the various claims of injustice and/or errors as enumerated by  the  service
member’s son and wife.  They recommend denial of the request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The deceased member’s wife reviewed the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  states
that the government had the burden  of  offering  unmistakable  evidence  to
rebut the Appellant’s charges  and  presumptions  of  the  service-connected
aggravation, while also showing that the increase in the  disability  (i.e.,
many brain tumors leading to removal of some) was due only  to  the  natural
progress of the disease.  Chemical and other biological elements have  track
histories for causing brain tumors and  other  forms  of  cancer  and  since
tumors can be hidden within certain portions of the brain, go unnoticed  for
years.  The service member’s problems with alcohol abuse is well  documented
but there is no mention of other physical and mental problems in  which  his
physical behavior and medical  records  clearly  demonstrated  back  in  his
first enlistment until the end of his life.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  In an  earlier  application,  the
son of  the  deceased  member  requested  that  his  father’s  discharge  be
upgraded.  On 18 July 1995, the Board concluded that the son had  not  shown
a plausible reason for delay in filing, and we were not persuaded  that  the
record raised issues of error or injustice which required resolution on  the
merits of this case.  Therefore,  the  Board  rejected  the  application  as
untimely.  The widow of the deceased member now submits a letter  requesting
that the member’s records be corrected  to  reflect  a  medical  retirement.
After reviewing the  documentation  submitted,  we  are  not  persuaded  the
deceased member’s record are in error or that his separation  from  the  Air
Force was unjust.  The Air Force’s evaluation, in  our  opinion,  adequately
addresses the  widow’s  contentions  concerning  the  member’s  fitness  for
continued military service at the time of his separation.  In  view  of  the
above, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  and
adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that  the  member  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 1 April 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathy Boockholdt, Member
      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit G. ROP, dated 23 Oct 95 w/atchs.
      Exhibit H. Spouse’s letters, dated 12 Feb 96 w/atchs and
                       3 Mar 96 w/atchs.
      Exhibit I. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 28 Oct 96.
      Exhibit J. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Nov 96.
      Exhibit K. Spouse’s Letter, dated 4 Jan 97.





                             CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                  Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9500986A

    Original file (9500986A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit G. On 12 February 1996, the deceased member’s wife submitted a letter and additional documentation requesting her deceased spouse’s records be corrected to reflect a medical retirement. The Air Force’s evaluation, in our opinion, adequately addresses the widow’s contentions concerning the member’s fitness for continued military service at the time of his separation. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802511

    Original file (9802511.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Mil Testing Br, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the spouse of the deceased member has...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01230

    Original file (BC-2012-01230.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DFAS states that based on Claims, Against the Government, Title 31 United States Code Section 3702(b) (31 USC § 3702(b)), The Barring Act, the applicant was required to submit a claim for the SBP annuity within six years from her deceased spouse’s date of death. _________________________________________________________________ 2 APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel states there is no statue or regulation that states DD Form 2656-7 and only this form, is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9702241

    Original file (9702241.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02241 COUNSEL: ANTHONY STEFANSON HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: Applicant is the widow of a former service member, who requests that she receive the remaining annual payments of her deceased spouse's aviation continuation pay (ACP) for 1991 through 1996. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retention Analyst, AFPC/DPAR, states that applicant's counsel incorrectly states that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04722

    Original file (BC-2012-04722.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, we also note that federal law makes the election unavailable when the deemed election is not timely effected, and no evidence has been presented which shows a deemed election was made within the one-year time period mandated by the law. We are aware that in extraordinary circumstances, it is within the authority of the Board to correct a record if it finds it necessary to prevent an error or injustice. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR BC-2012- 04722 in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9802981

    Original file (9802981.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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-2004-01024

    Original file (BC-2004-01024.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    1447, there is no requirement that a “surviving spouse” be married for one year. Section 1477’s not requiring a surviving spouse to be married to the member for one year in order to be entitled to death benefits, DPPTR argues that Section 1477 pertains to death gratuity paid to the surviving spouse of a member who either died on active duty or within 120 days of retirement. Section 1447 (7A) however, defines a widow as the surviving wife of a person “who was married to him for at least one...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03102

    Original file (BC-2006-03102.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    As a result of the DOS correction her date of retirement was extended and she died while on active duty. DPPD’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. HQ AFPC/DPPRT considered the applicant’s request for the decedent’s minor child to be eligible for SBP under Insurable Interest coverage. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 August 2007.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00391

    Original file (BC 2013 00391.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was unjustly manipulated into signing divorce papers just prior to her husband’s death by her ex-husband’s son-in-law to deny her his SBP benefits. Upon retirement, he elected spouse only SBP coverage for his wife at that time. The law is very specific in that legal documentation must be provided that reflects the member agreed, or the court ordered, the member to establish former spouse coverage.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00391

    Original file (BC-2013-00391.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was unjustly manipulated into signing divorce papers just prior to her husband’s death by her ex-husband’s son-in-law to deny her his SBP benefits. Upon retirement, he elected spouse only SBP coverage for his wife at that time. The law is very specific in that legal documentation must be provided that reflects the member agreed, or the court ordered, the member to establish former spouse coverage.