RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 00-01467
INDEX CODE 128.08 108.01
XXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be awarded severance pay for an involuntary discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her performance for 9 years and 4 months was above standard with all
her reports receiving the highest ratings. Two months’ notice was not
a great deal of time to get one’s life on track. She had just gotten
divorced, her house was foreclosed and her baby was due. Further, she
had back problems prior to separation. During her medical evaluation,
the doctor did not check her back and she still has back problems.
Her complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s available military medical and personnel records
contain no evidence of back trouble. The applicant hit her head on
the base gym floor on 1 Apr 81. She did not lose consciousness or
sustain neurological deficit and was in no apparent distress. She was
returned to duty. In May 84, she sustained a neck sprain in a motor
vehicle accident, which apparently resolved. She was in and out of the
Weight Management Program, receiving a profile while she was pregnant
with edema and afterwards following delivery by Cesarean section in
Mar 88. On 13 Sep 89, she was hit on the head by a racquet but
apparently suffered no loss of consciousness or other effects.
On her SF Form 93, Report of Medical History, dated 11 Jan 90, the
applicant indicated that her health was “Good” and she was taking no
medications. She marked “No” to “Recurrent Back Pain.” The SF 88,
Report of Medical Examination, dated 11 Jan 90, reflects that the
applicant exceeded her maximum allowable weight; her head, neck and
spine were normal; and that she was worldwide qualified.
She was honorably discharged on 19 Jan 90 in the grade of staff
sergeant under the provisions of the early release program-strength
reduction. She completed 9 years, 5 months and 27 days of active
service.
An informal check with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) by the
AFBCMR in-take office at Randolph confirmed that, as of 7 Nov 00, the
applicant has not filed a disability claim with the DVA.
Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 1322.29, Eligibility of Regular
and Reserve Personnel for Separation Pay, became effective on 20 Jun
91. The Directive made separation pay retroactive back to 5 Nov 90,
the day the law was passed. Since the applicant was discharged on 19
Jan 90, she was not entitled to separation pay.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Special Actions/BCMR Advisories, HQ AFPC/DPPD, reviewed the
appeal and indicated the applicant was not entitled to separation pay
because it had not been offered or authorized at the time of her
discharge. Further, she has not submitted any material or
documentation to show she was unfit due to a physical disability under
the provisions of Chapter 61, Title 10, USC, at the time of her
involuntary discharge.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 13 Oct 00 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that she should be awarded separation pay. Further,
although the applicant does not specifically request a medical
discharge, she alludes to a back problem prior to and after her
separation. However, she provides no evidence demonstrating she had
an unfitting medical condition that warranted disability processing.
Nor does this issue provide support for her assertion that she should
receive separation pay. The 20 Jun 91 Directive implementing
separation pay was retroactive only to 5 Nov 90, months after her 19
Jan 90 separation. 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. 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 4 January 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
Mr. Dale O. Jackson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 May 00.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 29 Sep 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 13 Oct 00.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-03493
She asserted she did not tell her recruiter or report her drug use on her security form because she felt she would not be able to enlist in the Air Force. A 1 Dec 00 medical entry reported the applicant presented with upper back pain after carrying her backpack, apparently on her left side. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded her general discharge for fraudulent enlistment should be changed to an honorable discharge for...
` RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01235 INDEX CODE 108.01 108.02 xxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: None xxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her medical records and fainting episodes be evaluated by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) as if she were still on active duty. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Aerospace Medicine Division, HQ AFRC/SGP, also reviewed the case and indicates...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01882 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 25 Mar 99 through 24 Mar 00 be declared void and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief,...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02967 INDEX CODE: 100 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to a favorable code. Unfortunately, the AF Form 418 denying applicant reenlistment is not on file in her military personnel record. Therefore, we have no basis on which to make any changes...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03886
A complete copy of the HQ USAF/DPPCC evaluation is at Exhibit B. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). While we find the applicant’s situation to be unfortunate, in the absence of sufficient evidence that his current BAH rate is erroneous, we agree with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03589
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s daughter, in a letter dated 19 August 2003, informed this office the applicant died on 26 January 2003. At the time the servicemember was eligible to elect coverage there was no requirement, either by policy or statute to notify a spouse if the servicemember made no election for coverage. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03695
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel takes exception to the advisory opinions and presents arguments contending the application is timely, his client is not seeking promotion on the basis of expediency, she did attempt to involve the IG and upgrade the AFCM, and sufficient evidence has been provided to warrant granting the relief sought. It...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Upon his separation, his SPD code was changed from “LCC” to “JBK.” His DD Form 214 shows him receiving full separation pay with an SPD code of “JBK.” However, he received only half of the separation pay to which he believes he was entitled and which was indicated in the Remarks block of his DD Form 214. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01418 INDEX CODE 110.02 100.06 xxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: No xxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason on her DD Form 214 be changed from “Personality Disorder” to one that more accurately reflects her diagnosis and her military record reflect she is fit for military service. Since the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01418 INDEX CODE 110.02 100.06 xxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: No xxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason on her DD Form 214 be changed from “Personality Disorder” to one that more accurately reflects her diagnosis and her military record reflect she is fit for military service. Since the...