RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01129
INDEX CODE: 108.0
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be evaluated by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) to determine her
medical status at the time of her administrative discharge, and that
she receive a disability discharge/retirement under the provisions of
AFI 36-3212.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her medical records were going to the MEB for review, and she was
discharged before a decision was made by the MEB which is an error on
the Military Personnel Flight (MPF). She was not to be discharged
before a final decision from the MEB.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 April 1997 for a
period of 4 years in the grade of airman basic.
On 20 April 1998, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
AFI 36-3208 (Personality Disorder) with an honorable discharge. She
was assigned an reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C and a
separation code of JFX. She served 1 year and 4 days of active
service.
On 28 September 1998, the applicant submitted an application for
correction of her records requesting that her narrative reason for
separation (Personality Disorder) and reenlistment eligibility (RE)
code of 2C be changed so that she may be allowed to return to the
military.
On 23 March 1999, the Board considered and corrected applicant’s
records to show that on 20 April 1998, she was discharged under the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Secretarial Authority), with a separation
code of KFF.
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed the application and
states that had the applicant completed the MEB processing, she would
have faced a dual-action consideration through the Secretary of the
Air Force Personnel Council who would have deliberated on whether to
separate her administratively, as happened, vice a medical disability
separation, had she been found unfit in the course of the disability
processing. However, the most likely outcome of such disability
processing would have been to return her to duty as being fit in spite
of the headache history, and administrative separation would have
followed as did occur. Many military members are able to continue to
serve with such headaches, and further evaluation and treatment might
well have brought these under adequate control to allow her to
continue her assigned duties or to work in another career field.
Based on this assumption, it would seem to serve little purpose at
this time to refer the applicant to an MEB at Lackland for such
consideration as she seeks. Even if she were to have been found unfit
by reason of the headaches, the separation would most likely have been
given with, at most, a 10% consideration, thus making little
difference in her benefits or rights under law to seek further care
through the DVA for a service-connected disability. Having received
an honorable discharge, she is entitled to such care through the DVA
and is advised to seek their services if she has not already done so
if the need still exists. The BCMR Medical Consultant 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 D.
AFPC/DPPD reviewed the application and states that the medical aspects
of this case are fully explained by the Medical Consultant; they agree
with his history. Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s
request.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 28 September 2001, a copies of the Air Force evaluations were
forwarded to applicant for review and response 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 reviewing the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records
are in error or that she has been the victim of an injustice. Her
contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments
provided by the appropriate Air Force offices adequately address those
allegations. Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of
the Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for the
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. 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 14 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
Mr. William Edwards, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Record of Proceedings, dated 3 Jun 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Aug 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 18 Sep 01, w/atch.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Sep 01.
DAVID W. MULGREW
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03253 INDEX CODE: 110.00; 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2C” be changed to a “1” and that his Entry Level Separation be changed to a hardship discharge. However, we find no basis upon which to recommend changing the reason for his discharge...
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...
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unfit for continued military service at the time of his separation and should have been processed through the Air Force Disability Evaluation System. The applicant has not submitted any documentation to show that he was unfit due to a physical disability under the provisions of Title 10, USC at the time of his voluntary discharge from active duty. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-03585A
_________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD states, in part, that the findings and recommendation of the FPEB along with the applicant’s rebuttal for a permanent retirement were forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for adjudication and SAFPC recommended that she be removed from the TDRL and permanently retired with a 60% rating. However, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and...
The Board concluded that, because the applicant was undergoing disability processing for his unfitting medical condition at the same time he was being processed for an administrative discharge for a personality disorder that was not a physical disability, he should have been processed as a "dual action" case in accordance with AFI 36-3212. I n applicant's case, while his disability case was being processed, Kessler AFB Discharge Authority separated applicant under the administrative...
Therefore, she should have been medically retired. Individuals who are pending retirement at the time they are referred for a physical disability evaluation enter the disability evaluation system under a rebuttal presumption that they are physically fit. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force Evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states that evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation indicate the applicant was fit and medically qualified for continued military service or appropriate separation and did not have any physical or mental' condition which would have warranted consideration under the provisions of AFI 36-3212. This, obviously, did not apply to the applicant, as he had been found fit to return to...
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01110 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for discharge be changed from “Personality Disorder” to either “Panic Disorder” or simply state “Medical discharge without diagnosis shown.” By amendment at Exhibit G, applicant requests that her DD Form 214...