Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03258
Original file (BC-2002-03258.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03258
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for his discharge be corrected to reflect that  he  was
permanently retired versus being placed on the Temporary Disability  Retired
List (TDRL).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While on active duty he  suffered  a  brain  aneurysm  that  resulted  in  a
massive stroke.  He was medically retired due to  the  disability.   He  was
subsequently deemed  100  percent  permanently  disabled  and  is  receiving
monthly compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).   It  is
possible that in 1995 somebody thought his  paralysis  might  be  temporary;
however  it  has  since  been  determined  that  his  paralysis  and  speech
impairment are not temporary and  he  was  deemed  100  percent  permanently
disabled.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement;  a  copy
of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty;  a
copy of his DD Form 256AF, Honorable Discharge certificate; and, a  copy  of
the Noncommissioned Officer's Creed.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on
30 Nov 87 and was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 20 Oct 94 and recommended  that
the applicant's case be referred to an Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board
(IPEB)  with  a  diagnosis  of  bacterial  endocarditis,   meningitis,   and
intracranial hemorrhage.   On  4  Nov  94,  an  Informal  PEB  reviewed  the
applicant's case and recommended that he  be  placed  on  the  TDRL  with  a
compensable percentage of 100 percent.  The  applicant  concurred  with  the
findings and recommended disposition of his case.  On  15  Feb  95,  he  was
retired from the Air Force and his name was placed  on  the  TDRL.   He  was
reexamined on 22 Aug 96 and the results  were  forwarded  to  the  IPEB  who
determined  that  his  condition  had  stabilized  and  recommended  he   be
permanently retired with a 100 percent  permanent  disability  rating.   The
applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the IPEB.  On  7
Oct 96, officials within the Office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force
directed that he be removed from the TDRL and  permanently  retired  with  a
100 percent disability rating.  He was permanently retired on 17 Oct 96.

The applicant's request to have his DD Form 214 corrected  to  reflect  that
he was discharged  in  the  grade  of  sergeant  has  been  administratively
corrected.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant's request.   DPPD  states  that
the purpose of the DD Form 214 is to record active  duty  information.   The
time spent on the TDRL is not considered active duty service and  therefore,
is not recorded on the DD Form 214.  The DPPD evaluation, with  attachments,
is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 15  Nov
02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the  evidence
of record, it appears that his DD Form 214 is administratively  correct  and
further amendment is not warranted.  In this respect, at  the  time  of  his
separation from the Air Force on 15 Feb 95 he was  placed  on  the  TDRL  as
appropriately indicated on his DD Form 214.  On 17 Oct 96,  he  was  removed
from the TDRL and permanently retired.  During that period while he  was  on
the TDRL, he was not considered to be on  active  duty,  and  therefore,  in
accordance with Department of Defense policy, amendment of the DD  Form  214
is not required in order to reflect his removal from the TDRL and  placement
on the permanent retired list.  We note that upon his  permanent  retirement
he was provided a special order, which documented that  action  and  can  be
used as evidence of his permanent retirement if he is  required  to  provide
such evidence.  Accordingly, we agree with the  opinion  and  recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale
as the basis for our 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 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  Docket  Number  02-03258  in
Executive Session on 29 Jan 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
      Ms. Martha Evans, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 31 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 02.




                                   PHILIP SHEUERMAN
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01206

    Original file (BC-2002-01206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-03231

    Original file (BC-2002-03231.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03231 INDEX CODE: 110.00 MICHELLE L. BOWLES COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears that the applicant is requesting that items 23 through 27 on her DD Form 214, specifically “Type of Separation”, “Character of Service,” “Separation Authority,” “Separation Code,” and “Reentry Code” be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03231

    Original file (BC-2002-03231.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03231 INDEX CODE: 110.00 MICHELLE L. BOWLES COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears that the applicant is requesting that items 23 through 27 on her DD Form 214, specifically “Type of Separation”, “Character of Service,” “Separation Authority,” “Separation Code,” and “Reentry Code” be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03279

    Original file (BC-2002-03279.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 Feb 02, the Air Force PEB recommended that the applicant be permanently retired from the Air Force with a combined disability rating of 30 percent. Functional factors to be considered include but are not limited to psychotic manifestations, speech disturbances, impairment of vision, tremors, complete or partial loss of use of one or more extremities, and visceral manifestations. Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the applicant's disability processing...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03742

    Original file (BC-2002-03742.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 1 March 2001, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) determined he was unfit and recommended his placement on TDRL status with 30% disability. The DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant summarized the information contained in the applicant’s personnel and medical records and is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted. We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force because of physical...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9701142

    Original file (9701142.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant developed a bipolar disorder during the course of her active duty service, a condition which had not 2 AFBCMR 97- 01142 J been diagnosed prior to her service (as suggested by the IPEB) nor which was aggravated by "willful noncompliance" as the FPEB found. The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant should receive relief from the disability evaluation system and have...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101545

    Original file (0101545.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant's request and recommends that his records be changed to reflect that he was removed from the TDRL and permanently retired with a 70 percent compensable disability rating. In reviewing the disability processing in the applicant’s case, it appears that during his initial TDRL evaluation in December 1972, it was determined by the examining physician that his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-03610

    Original file (BC-2001-03610.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommended denial, indicating that a review of the disability processing records does not show any variances from normal procedures for a member in the Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES). Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-POCC indicated that their records show that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03318

    Original file (BC-2002-03318.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    The IPEB recommended that he be discharged from the Air Force with an EPTS condition. The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 10 Oct 02, with a compensable disability rating of 10 percent. This code assigns disability rating based on percent of body surface and use of medications.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03853

    Original file (BC-2003-03853.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The former member elected spouse and child SBP coverage, based on full retired pay, prior to being placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), effective 6 April 1983. However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ The following...