Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00256
Original file (BC-1998-00256.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00256
                 INDEX CODE 136.00
                 COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  No
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her time spent on the Temporary Disability Retirement List  (TDRL)  [1
year, 5 months, 26 days] be credited towards her total active  federal
military service date (TAFMSD) for retirement purposes.

[It  appears  that,  based  on  applicant’s  facsimile   (Exhibit   F)
transmitted to SAF/MIBR in Randolph, she is now  requesting  that  her
separation on 1 July 1998 be changed to retirement.]
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She is not asking for consideration for lost promotion  opportunities,
she is asking for the time she spent on the TDRL to be credited toward
her total military time so she can retire effective 1 July 1998.   She
did not want out of the Air Force. Her case was poorly documented  and
she believes  her  medical  condition  was  linked  to  the  emotional
mistreatment from her job.  While she was on the TDRL she was able  to
work full time and did not lose any time due to the vertigo. She could
have remained on active duty and not lost any time due to this alleged
condition.

A copy of applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was placed on the TDRL effective 8  September  1995.  At
that time she had 17 years, 2 months and 19 days  of  active  service.
She was ultimately found fit and returned to active duty  on  5  March
1997.  She apparently voluntarily applied  and  was  approved  for  an
honorable discharge for “Miscellaneous/General  Reasons”  effective  1
July 1998. Her net active service  for  this  period  was  1  year,  3
months, and 27 days, giving her a total of 18 years, 6 months  and  16
days.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the official documents provided with applicant's submission,  are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air
Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these  facts  in  this
Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Disability Operations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPD, states  that  a
thorough review of the file revealed no errors  or  irregularities  in
the  processing  of  the  applicant’s  case  within   the   disability
evaluation system. She was properly  rated  under  federal  disability
rating guidelines and afforded all rights to which  she  was  entitled
under disability law and departmental policy.

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

The Chief, Officer Accessions Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAOR,  evaluated  this
appeal and states that in accordance with AFI 36-2404, the TAFMSD will
be adjusted whenever there is a break in active duty.  Time  spent  on
the TDRL is considered a break in active duty; Based on the time spent
on the TDRL, applicant’s TAFMSD was adjusted from 20 June 1978  to  16
December 1979.  Recommend denial.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the evaluations and indicates that the opinions  do
not address nor cite any law or reference as to why her request should
be denied. She was told by an NCO in the Separations  and  Retirements
Office at AFPC that they received requests like hers all the time. She
was even told that Air Force members who had spent time in confinement
could request that their confinement time be  credited  toward  TAFMSD
for retirement purposes and their requests were  being  approved.  She
can certainly present a valid case to show the Air Force was wrong  in
the medical conclusion to medically retire her. There was  nothing  to
substantiate the TDRL status. Her vertigo was caused by stress.

Applicant subsequently  advised  SAF/MIBR  at  Randolph  AFB,  TX,  by
facsimile that she wants her separation on 1 July 1998  changed  to  a
retirement.

Applicant’s complete responses are at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Retirements Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed the appeal  and  cited
Sections  of  Title  10  and  AFI  36-2604  applicable  to   computing
creditable active service, DD Form 214s, etc. The reviewer  recommends
the case be denied as the actions placing the applicant  on  the  TDRL
were correct. The applicant voluntarily separated and  should  not  be
awarded unserved active service for time spent on the TDRL.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation, with attachments, is  at
Exhibit G.

The AFBCMR Medical  Consultant  believes  that  the  applicant’s  duty
performance was affected by her medical condition making her unfit for
continued duty in 1995 regardless of the etiology of the problem.  The
fact that resolution of her condition occurred over the ensuing months
while on the TDRL fits well with the presumed viral  etiology  of  the
unfitting condition. Unfortunately it  is  not  possible  to  continue
members on active duty who cannot fulfill their duties, and  placement
on the TDRL was both appropriate and timely. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the additional evaluations were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 3 May 1999 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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After a thorough  review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded her request should be granted. Applicant’s  contentions  are
duly noted; however, we do not find these  uncorroborated  assertions,
in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override   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
her 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 15 June 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                  Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
                  Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 17 Feb 98.
   Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 26 Mar 98.
   Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Apr 98.
   Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Apr 98.
   Exhibit G. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, dated 10 Mar 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 Mar 99.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800256

    Original file (9800256.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00256 INDEX CODE 136.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her time spent on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) [1 year, 5 months, 26 days] be credited towards her total active federal military service date (TAFMSD) for retirement purposes. Time spent on the TDRL is considered a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802607

    Original file (9802607.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Upon entering active duty, the applicant’s date of rank was established in accordance with AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, para 7.5.1. In this regard, the Air Force states that had the applicant entered active duty from civilian status some of her professional experience would have been used in computing her date of rank. The Board is of the opinion that the applicant’s date of rank was computed in accordance with existing regulations.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02049

    Original file (BC-2004-02049.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 May 1996, the applicant’s case was forwarded to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) and they recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating. The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) determines if the servicemember should be processed through the DES when a member is determined to be disqualified for continued military service. As noted by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, the time spent on the TDRL is not creditable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801145

    Original file (9801145.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE EVALUATION: - The AFBCMR Chief Medical Consultant reviewed this application and is of the opinion that no change In the records is warranted and the application should be d e n i m . *at Based on the medical evidence provided, the IPEB found her condition nad stabilized and recommended thar she be removed from the TDRL and permanently retired w i t h a 40% disability rating. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated Exhibit D .

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801410

    Original file (9801410.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    In the applicant’s case, the IPEB and FPEB during their evaluations both determined his condition as “May be Permanent.” The permanence determination of the applicant’s medical condition was based on the preponderance of medical evidence provided at the time of his medical evaluation. However, in our opinion, it appears that with proper rest and therapy, the applicant’s medical problem may have resolved itself within a reasonable period of time, he would have been able to return to his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800224

    Original file (9800224.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 31 October 1996, the Secretary of the Air Force agreed with the findings of the IPEB and directed the applicant's permanent retirement, with a 30 percent disability rating. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that the applicant served his last five years of military service with a severe eating disorder that resulted in excessive weight loss and physical disability that was thoroughly evaluated at Wilford Hall Medical Center in 1994. Accordingly, we recommend that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801908

    Original file (9801908.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Commanders' Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, advises that the applicant states her desires were to sell 30 days upon reenlistment on 1 June 1998. A complete copy of the their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states that she admits that she is guilty of having somewhat of a mental overload during the time she signed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 9903103

    Original file (9903103.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802599

    Original file (9802599.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    They subsequently reviewed and upheld the previous boards’ findings and recommendations and directed the applicant’s discharge with severance pay and a disability rating of 10 percent for physical disability. The applicant was found unfit for continued military service and was rated based on her condition at the time of her disability evaluation. Whereas the Air Force rates a member’s disability at the time of separation.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800949

    Original file (9800949.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00949 INDEX CODE 108.02 COUNSEL: American Legion HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1997 administrative discharge for failure in the Weight Management Program (WMP) be changed to a medical retirement or, in the alternative, he be given a medical discharge with a 20% rating for severance pay. ...