RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01931
INDEX CODE: 128.08
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be paid severance pay due him following his disability discharge in
1969.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form
214. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was honorably discharged on 4 Jun 69, under the
provisions of AFM 35-4 (Physical Disability). He had completed a
total of 3 months and 25 days of active service and was serving in the
grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge. Applicant’s DD
Form 214 reveals that he was “not entitled to receive disability
severance pay.”
The remaining 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 at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied. DPPD stated that
the applicant was involuntarily released from active duty and
discharged on 4 Jun 69, due to a physical disability considered to
have existed prior to his entrance on active duty, under the
provisions of AFM 35-4. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was
initiated on 5 May 69 and the results referred to the Informal
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for adjudication of the case. The
IPEB found the applicant’s unfitting medical condition for Mitral
insufficiency, congenital versus post rheumatic as having existed
prior to service (EPTS), without service aggravation. The IPEB
recommended to the Physical Review Council (PRC) that the applicant be
discharged under other than Chapter 61, Title 10, USC; and, the PRC
agreed with the IPEB’s diagnosis and final disposition. The applicant
concurred with both the IPEB and PRC findings and recommendations. On
29 May 69, officials in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
approved the recommendation of the PRC and directed that the applicant
be separated, without entitlement to any benefits under the provisions
of Chapter 61, Title 10, USC. DPPD indicated that the applicant was
consequently sent home pending final action of his PEB proceedings.
Discharge action was effective on 4 Jun 69.
DPPD stated that the fact that the member was unavailable to sign his
DD Form 214 at the time of his discharge processing is irrelevant.
Had the applicant been eligible to receive disability severance pay,
the Accounting and Finance Office would have paid him at the time of
his separation. No payment was ever made because he was not entitled
to any military benefits under the provisions of Chapter 61, Title 10,
USC. The applicant’s ineligibility to receive disability severance
pay is reflected throughout his MEB/PEB process, including his DD Form
214. The applicant has not submitted any material or documentation to
show he was improperly rated or processed under the provisions of
military law and policy at the time of his disability discharge.
The HQ AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9
July 2002 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed.
3. The application was not filed within three years after the
alleged error or injustice was discovered, or reasonably could have
been discovered, as required by Section 1552, Title 10, United States
Code (10 USC 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Although the
applicant asserts a date of discovery which would, if correct, make
the application timely, the essential facts which gave rise to the
application, were known to applicant long before the asserted date of
discovery. Knowledge of those facts constituted the date of discovery
and the beginning of the three-year period for filing. Thus, the
application is untimely.
4. Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552 permits us, in our discretion, to
excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice. We have carefully
reviewed applicant's submission and the entire record, and we do not
find a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing of this
application. The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for delay
in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of
error or injustice which require resolution on the merits at this
time. Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in the interest
of justice to excuse the untimely filing of the application.
_________________________________________________________________
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of
the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 15 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Billy Baxter, Member
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jun 02, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 3 Jul 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 02.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00975 INDEX CODE: 108.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears that the applicant is requesting that item 11C of his DD Form 214, be changed to reflect medical disability rather than physical disability. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01206
Subsequent to being evaluated by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) and Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB), the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of AFR 35-4 (Placed on Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL)). Following a period of observation and treatment on TDRL status, he was permanently disability retired on 12 Jun 1986, with a disability rating of 40 percent for his condition and received pay in the grade of colonel, with over 26 years...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02624
The board recommended discharge. The IPEB again reviewed the file and noted that the pre-existence of the applicant’s mental health condition was not in question but rather whether or not the condition was aggravated by his military service and, if so, whether that aggravation was permanent. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02632
The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states as defined in Title 38, the term "incurred in combat with an enemy of the United States or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of duty during a period of war" applies to his service- connected rating from the DVA. DPPD stated that he reviewed and agreed that his disability was not a direct result of war...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02827
The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean that the condition is unfitting for continued military service. In the medical Consultant’s view, the preponderance of evidence of the record shows that the applicant’s scoliosis condition existed prior to service, and that her back pain was the natural progression of the condition. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02545
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-02545 INDEX CODE 108.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be afforded the opportunity to appeal before a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) the decision to remove him from the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL). Apparently no response was received and, by letter date 24 Jul 02, HQ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00224
No other medical records are available for review between the time of his separation exam and his 7 Nov 02 hospitalization. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant indicates the applicant was diagnosed with his cancer one week after discharge. Although complete service medical records are not available for review, the Consultant believes the applicant would have been placed on medical hold and retained on active...
Following discharge from the service, he has received disability compensation from the DVA and bases his request for records correction on this fact. Evidence of record established beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was medically qualified for continued active duty, that the reason for his separation was proper, and that no error or injustice occurred in this case. 2 A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Disability Operations Branch, USAF...
The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit L. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant's counsel reiterated his previous assertions and states that he disagrees with DPPD and JA that the applicant did not provide any new evidence. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the additional advisory and provided a response which...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01056
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that, at the time of separation from active duty with the Regular Air Force, the applicant’s left knee condition was not “unfitting” for continued active military service. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The additional advisory opinion is provided following review of the previous AFBCMR action granting the applicant...