RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03108
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her honorable discharge be changed to a medical retirement with all
benefits.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letters 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 Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states
that a review of the records points to the possibility that the applicant
was not entirely forthright in letting her Guard Unit know about the extent
of her compensated disabilities. The period from 1992 to eventual
disclosure in early 1997 was apparently not revealed to her unit as a time
in which she was receiving compensation. The degree of problem, when
finally revealed, necessitated a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) review with
its resulting inevitable conclusion: unfit for deployment and duty. While
the applicant argues that she should have been allowed to participate in
unit training assemblies (UTAs) from early 1997 until finalization of her
disability processing, this is really not the case. Once a Guard member is
identified with potentially unfitting medical conditions, he/she is
precluded from further participation for pay or points until the issue is
resolved, administrative delays notwithstanding. Clearly, if she was
receiving disability compensation at the level provided by the Department
of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for almost four years before this became known to
her unit, her condition warranted exclusion from such participation while
an evaluation was being undertaken. There appears to be no errors or
injustice in the disposition of this case upon which to base a favorable
recommendation for the relief she now seeks. Therefore, he is of the
opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application
should be denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Personnel Policy Staff Officer, ANG/DPFP, also reviewed this
application and states that it is clear that the applicant only has 14
years of Total Satisfactory Service (SAT-SVC), per AF Form 526. Under the
Disability Evaluation System (DES), an individual must have a minimum of 15
years SAT-SVC in order to qualify for a medical retirement. Although the
National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, (Report of Separation and Record of
Service), Block 10(d) reflects 17 years, 11 months and 27 days, this
identifies Total Service for Pay, not Total SAT-SVC. Therefore, they
recommend denial of the applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 27 April 2001, complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (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 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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant 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 5 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
Mr. George Franklin, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 23 Jan 01.
Exhibit D. Letter ANG/DPFP, dated 6 Apr 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Apr 01.
RITA S. LOONEY
Panel Chair
The Board directed that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect that he was not released from active duty on 8 Mar 96 under the provisions of AFI 36-3209 (Misconduct), transferred to the Kansas Air National Guard on 2 Apr 96, discharged from the Kansas Air National Guard on 31 Jul 97, and assigned to the Retired Reserve on 2 Aug 97; but was continued on active duty until 31 Jan 99; and, that he was released from active duty on 31 Jan 99 for the Convenience of the Government...
A complete copy of the HQ USAF/JAG evaluation is at Exhibit F. ANG/DPFP indicated that after an additional review of the applicant’s medical documentation, and based on the fact that the applicant was injured while on duty, even though he was disqualified medically for duty in Dec 98, the applicant should have been found LOD-Yes for his spinal injury. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02850
He contends that he has been incapacitated since Jan 98 and should have received incapacitation pay from 7 Apr 98, after his active duty status was terminated, until 22 May 01, his date of separation from the ANG. We note that in Oct 98, some nine months after he was injured, an LOD was conducted regarding the applicant’s knee injuries certifying he was incapacitated, resulting in his entitlement to incapacitation pay for the period 7 Oct 98 to 30 Mar 99. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02156
A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was convened in Nov 01 in accordance with Air Force policy and initially returned the applicant to duty based on his only having a singe seizure episode and being recurrence free without medication for three months. Based on stable, seizure free epilepsy, the IPEB rated the applicant’s seizure disorder at 10% and controlled by medication according to guidance in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). ...
In the alternative, his records be corrected to show he was retired because of physical disability with a compensable rating of 30% effective 8 Jul 97. In support of his application, the applicant provided a brief by counsel expanding on the foregoing contentions; his performance records; records associated with his participation in the Weight Management Program (WMP) and the demotion action; and extracts from his medical records. The board recommended that the applicant’s case be referred...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02530 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that she may join the Army Reserve. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded and...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02597
The Air Force Informal Physical Evaluations Board’s (IPEB) determination that she be discharged from active service in the Air National Guard with a 20 percent disability was in error because the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), “[u]sing the same medical records and statements less than six months later,” rated her disability at 50 percent. The IPEB reviewed the request and determined that these two conditions, in and of themselves, are not unfitting conditions and therefore would not...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01768
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTT recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. In addition, in Oct 97 she did not qualify for retirement...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03048 INDEX CODES: 100.06, 110.02, 110.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Special Order A1-175, dated 19 Aug 99, honorably discharging him from the Puerto Rico Air National Guard (PRANG) on 19 Aug 99 be invalidated. On 21 March 00, pursuant to its authority over federal labor/management...
The Consultant recommends that the narrative reason be changed to “Conditions that Interfere with Military Service, Mental Disorders,” leaving her SPD and RE codes unchanged. Ms. Looney voted to deny and has submitted a Minority Report, which is at Exhibit F. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 00, w/atchs. RITA S. LOONEY Panel Chair AFBCMR 01-00064 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the...