RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03138
INDEX CODE: 107.00, 108.02,
110.00
COUNSEL: Disabled American Veterans
HEARING DESIRED:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge for medical reasons be changed to reflect disability
retirement and that his records be corrected to reflect that he was
released from active duty in the grade of staff sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
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 is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
Examiner’s note: Applicant's request to include his Air Force Commendation
Medal (AFCM) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty, and that he be issued a DD Form 256AF, Honorable Discharge
certificate, in the grade of staff sergeant, are administrative errors that
have been corrected by the appropriate office.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPD, reviewed the application and recommends denial. DPPD states
that their review of the case file revealed that he was treated fairly
throughout the entire military disability evaluation process, he was
properly rated under Federal disability guidelines, and he was afforded a
full and fair hearing as required under military disability laws and
policy. He has not submitted any material of documentation to show why his
DD Form 214 should be corrected to reflect his active duty rank as a staff
sergeant nor that he was awarded a permanent disability retirement in lieu
of his current disability discharge (see Exhibit C).
The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant’s request and recommends
denial. The consultant states that the most convincing argument for no
higher award came from the applicant himself, who argued for his return to
duty in a letter addressed to the Personnel Council in which he noted his
improvement with the use of a newer medication to the point that his
“lifestyle is hardly affected at all by the disease”. The applicant’s
condition that rendered him unfit for military service was judged to be no
more that a mildly disabling one, backed by his own words, and separation
with 20% disability was appropriately recommended (see Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 18 May 01, for review and response. 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. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available
evidence of record, the Board majority finds 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 rebutted by applicant. Absent persuasive evidence applicant
was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not
followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, the Board majority
finds no basis to disturb the existing record.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 24 Jul 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application. Mr.
Anderson voted to grant the applicant’s request, but does not wish to
submit a minority report.
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 19 Mar 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Apr 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 May 01.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
CORRECTION OF MILTARY RECORDS
(AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT
I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that the applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended
the case be denied. I concur with that finding and their conclusion that
relief is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that
the application be denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03661
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03291 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be set aside and she be given a disability retirement. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The discharge she received was...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records (Exhibit B), are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits C, D, E and F). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, a majority of the Board concludes that no relief is warranted. As he had no unfitting condition, the majority of the Board agrees with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant that consideration...
He is rated 50 percent service connected and his record should be corrected accordingly. In a legal review of the discharge case file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with an honorable discharge. The remaining 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 at Exhibit C, D...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00049
The applicant’s other conditions were not separately unfitting at the time of evaluation in the disability evaluation system and did not warrant separate ratings. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the fact the applicant has been granted certain service connected disability rating from the DVA does not entitle him to Air Force disability compensation or a change in existing military disability ratings. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states that the applicant was first seen for psychiatric problems in 1994, essentially exhibiting the same symptoms as were later found to be unfitting for continued service, obsessive-compulsive and depressed mood disorders with suicidal ideation. This is the reason why an individual can be found unfit for service at a certain level,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01515
On 19 Dec 00, the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the applicant be separated from active service for Physical Disability with severance pay. Thus, there is no evidence provided that his condition of excessive sun sensitivity has actually improved. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 Nov 02 for...
_________________________________________________________________ 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. The applicant has not submitted any documentation to show that he was unfit due to a physicial disability at the time of his voluntary separation. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
Based on the preponderance of evidence, the board concluded that if the applicant was currently serving on active duty with his medical condition, the IPEB would consider him unfit for the rigors of military service and recommend that he be discharged with severance pay with a 10% disability rating. The applicant did not have 20 years of service at the time of his discharge. The BCMR Medical Consultant believes applicant should be awarded a length of service retirement on the basis of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03414 COUNSEL: GEORGE E DAY HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 16 April 1997 to 15 April 1998 be expunged from his records; promotion to Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) with a date of rank appropriate to his promotion sequence number in 1998 with...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03941
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant had an existing prior to service (EPTS) eye condition that was waived at the time of his enlistment and he completed his four-year term of service receiving an honorable discharge. His eye condition was noted in his enlistment, periodic, and separation medical examinations, and there was no evidence...