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
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. ...
_________________________________________________________________ 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
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...
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
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...
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
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
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
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was unjustly manipulated into signing divorce papers just prior to her husbands death by her ex-husbands 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
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was unjustly manipulated into signing divorce papers just prior to her husbands death by her ex-husbands 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.