RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01240
            INDEX CODE:  108.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records  be  corrected  to  show  that  she  was  transferred  from  the
Temporary  Disability  Retired  List  (TDRL)  and  permanently  retired  for
disability reasons.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She is on a retired list and is trying to  get  a  copy  of  her  retirement
order.  She  receives  updated  information  for  active  duty  and  retired
members.  She and her dependents are covered and eligible  for  CHAMPUS  and
TRICARE benefits.  She has a retired military  ID  card,  which  was  issued
through DEERS.  She contacted the retired  pay  division  and  was  told  to
request a correction of her military records.  Her  complete  submission  is
at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force and was  progressively  promoted
to the grade of senior airman, having assumed that grade effective and  with
a date of rank of 6 Jun  76.   She  was  appointed  noncommissioned  officer
status on 1 Sep 77.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was convened on 13 Dec 77 and referred  the
applicant's case to an Informal Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)  with  a
diagnosis of neurotic depression, stress, and an immature  personality.   On
21 Dec 77, the IPEB found her unfit for further military service based on  a
diagnosis of neurotic depression, chronic,  severe,  with  total  incapacity
for social and vocational rehabilitation.  The IPEB recommended that she  be
placed on the Temporary Disability  Retired  List  (TDRL)  with  a  combined
compensable rating of 100%.  The applicant  agreed  with  the  findings  and
recommended disposition of the IPEB.  She was placed on the TDRL on  26  Jan
78.  A TDRL re-evaluation was conducted in May  1979.   It  was  recommended
that she be retained on the TDRL with a reduced disability  rating  of  50%.
Another  TDRL  re-evaluation  was  conducted  in  August  1980.   Her  final
diagnosis  was  depressive  neurosis,  by  history,  in  remission  with  no
apparent stress.  It was recommended that she be removed from the  TDRL  and
discharged with severance pay.  On 9 Sep 80, the Air Force  PEB  recommended
that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force based on a diagnosis  of
depressive neurosis with moderate social and industrial  impairment  with  a
combined disability  rating  of  10%.   The  applicant  concurred  with  the
recommended findings.  On 7 Oct 80,  she  was  removed  from  the  TDRL  and
discharged with a compensable rating of 10%.  She served 3 years, 6  months,
and 14 days on active duty

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states that a check with  DFAS  confirmed
that the applicant was not an Air Force retiree  receiving  retirement  pay.
The DVA confirmed that she was authorized a military retiree ID  card  based
on her current DVA disability rating.  DPPD  assumes  that  because  she  is
receiving compensation from the DVA she believes she  is  receiving  retired
pay from the Air Force.

The applicant  was  treated  fairly  throughout  the  Disability  Evaluation
System process and was properly rated under Federal  disability  guidelines.
She was afforded the opportunity for further  review  by  additional  boards
during the DES process which she declined, thereby  waiving  her  rights  to
due process.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the advisory and reiterated her previous  contentions
and added that the problem is she is still listed  as  being  on  the  TDRL,
which is preventing access to her military  medical  records.   She  has  no
documents nor was she counseled that her TDRL  rating  was  reduced  to  50%
then she was discharged with a 10% rating.  She was placed on the TDRL  with
a 100% rating then she turned in her military  ID  card  and  was  issued  a
retired ID card.   She  was  counseled  that  she  had  access  to  military
exchange facilities and was covered under CHAMPUS.  She was  told  that  her
military retirement pay would be delayed because the money she  had  already
received would be recouped.  Once the  recoupment  was  finished  retirement
pay was filed for but was declined because of her TDRL status.  She did  not
receive her military ID card from the DVA, she  received  it  from  the  Air
Force.  Applicant states that she does not receive  a  check  from  the  Air
Force.  That is what is in question.  She is not receiving a  check  because
she is listed as being on the TDRL and not  retired.   When  President  Bush
signed into law that certain 100% disabled  veterans  are  now  entitled  to
receive both DVA and retirement benefits, she received  a  letter  notifying
her that she may be eligible for those benefits.

In an additional letter, applicant states she went to several DEERS  offices
for verification of her ID card privileges  and  was  told  that  they  were
denied access to her DEERS records.  The office that was able to get  beyond
the "Denied Access" screen was only able to view a screen,  which  indicated
that she was separated, which is obviously in error.

In support of  her  request,  applicant  provided  copies  of  her  DVA  and
military ID cards, a copy of her  retirement  order,  signed  affidavits,  a
copy of an envelope, and a letter she received  from  AFMPC/DPMDOA1,  and  a
copy of her DD Form  214,  Report  of  Separation  from  Active  Duty.   Her
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Evidence  has  not  been  presented  which
would lead us to believe that the applicant's disability processing and  the
rating she received at final disposition was contrary to the  governing  Air
Force  instruction  and  the  law.   The  applicant  believes  that  she  is
currently  on  the  retired  list  and  should  be  receiving  retired  pay.
However, a review of her records and  the  personnel  data  system  reflects
that after her TDRL re-evaluation she was removed  from  the  TDRL  and  was
discharged with severance pay on 7 Oct 80.  Therefore,  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's records are not in error.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
01240 in Executive Session on 15 Jul 03, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Kenneth Dumm, Member
      Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 19 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Jun 03, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair