Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002671
Original file (0002671.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NO.:  00-02671
                       INDEX CODE:  108.00
    
                       COUNSEL:  DAV
                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO


The applicant requests that his records  be  corrected  to  show  he  was
retired because of physical disability with a compensable rating of  30%,
rather than discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay  with
a compensable rating of 10%.  The applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.

The appropriate Air  Force  offices  evaluated  applicant's  request  and
provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be
denied  (Exhibit  C).   The  advisory  opinions  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).  Applicant’s  response  is
at Exhibit E.

After careful consideration of  applicant's  request  and  the  available
evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error  or  injustice
to warrant corrective action.  The  facts  and  opinions  stated  in  the
advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record  and  have
not been adequately rebutted by applicant.   Absent  persuasive  evidence
applicant was denied rights to which  entitled,  appropriate  regulations
were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find  no
basis to disturb the existing record.

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.

The Board staff  is  directed  to  inform  applicant  of  this  decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is  final  and  will
only be reconsidered upon the  presentation  of  new  relevant  evidence,
which was not available at the time the application was filed.

Members of the Board Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Ms. Mary C.  Johnson,  and
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski Jr. considered this application on 9 May 2001,  in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603  and  the
governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.




                                  THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                                   Vice Chair

Exhibits:

A.  Applicant's DD Form 149
B.  Available Master Personnel Records
C.  Advisory Opinions
D.  AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
E.  Applicant’s Response

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9601729

    Original file (9601729.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C ) . Officials within the office of the Secretary of the Air Force reviewed the case file and directed that the applicant be discharged with severance pay and given a 20 percent compensable rating. The disability laws of Title 10, USC require the military services to rate disabilities based on their current condition, at the time...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9901256

    Original file (9901256.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant’s response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900947

    Original file (9900947.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the application was filed.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03916

    Original file (BC-2008-03916.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His DVA award was 50 percent, his CRSC award was 40 percent with Special Monthly Compensation. In this respect, it appears that while the DVA increased his combined service-connected disability rating to 50 percent, the particular disability that has been determined combat-related remains rated at 40 percent. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00671

    Original file (BC-2004-00671.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of applicant’s request stating, in part, that although his disability rating exceeds the required 10% rating, he does not qualify for CRSC since he did not complete 20 years of active service. However, after careful review of the available records, it appears he has been credited with all active service creditable under the governing regulation and laws in effect at the time...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900244

    Original file (9900244.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01342

    Original file (BC-2004-01342.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of applicant’s request stating, in part, that although his disability rating exceeds the required 10% rating, he does not qualify for CRSC since he did not complete 20 years of active service. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). However, after careful review of the available records, it appears he has been credited with all active...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000803

    Original file (0000803.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803334

    Original file (9803334.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the application was filed.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 9903072

    Original file (9903072.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant and counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Counsel’s response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.