Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04052
Original file (BC-2003-04052.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04052
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed so that he can reenter the Reserves.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was having problems with his mental health, but  has  not  had  any
problems since 1998.  He has been a teacher for  five  years  and  has
been Teacher of the Month several times.  He ran the Olympic torch  in
Oklahoma City.  The reason for his discharge is no longer a problem.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 October 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Oklahoma Air National
Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve for a period of six years.   He  was
credited with approximately two years, five months and eight  days  of
prior Air Force Reserve service.

On 4 October 1994, the applicant was  honorably  discharged  from  the
Oklahoma ANG and Air Force Reserve under the provisions of ANGR 39-10,
Paragraph  2-6B(2)  (Not  Eligible  for  Worldwide  Deployment).    He
completed five years, five months and eight days of  service  for  pay
purposes.

On 18 December 1995, applicant submitted an application to  the  Board
requesting that his  discharge  due  to  medical  disqualification  be
changed to a service-connected disability.  On 4  December  1997,  the
Board considered applicant’s request and found sufficient evidence  of
an error or injustice to warrant the applicant’s  physical  evaluation
through the Air Force  Disability  System  to  determine  his  medical
condition as of 4 October 1994.  A copy of the Record  of  Proceedings
is at Exhibit C.

On  25  February  1999,  the  Board  considered   the   findings   and
recommendations of the Air Force  Disability  System  and  denied  the
applicant’s request that his  records  be  changed  to  show  that  he
received a medical discharge with  either  medical  retirement  or  at
least a disability rating.  A  copy  of  the  Addendum  to  Record  of
Proceedings is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI states that ANG Regulation 39-10,  Administrative  Separation
of   Airmen,   paragraph   2b   states,   “A   member   who   is   not
qualified/eligible for worldwide deployment will  be  separated.   The
appropriate commander will initiate action under this  authority  upon
determination that such condition exist.”  Applicant was discharged in
accordance with (IAW) governing directive with a Character of  Service
of  “Honorable”  and   Reenlistment   Eligibility   of   “Ineligible”.
Applicant  did  not  present  any  medical  documentation  to  warrant
substantiating his request for correction to his military  record  nor
did he show proof that an error  or  injustice  occurred.   Therefore,
they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 30 July 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to
the 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 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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
Therefore, 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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 30 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                         Mr. Edward H. Parker, Panel Chair
                         Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
                         Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Dec 03.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Record of Proceedings, dated 1 May 1998.
      Exhibit D. Addendum to Record of Proceedings,  dated  10  Mar
00.
      Exhibit E. Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 26 Jul 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 04.




                             EDWARD H. PARKER
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200815

    Original file (0200815.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 1 Mar 88, he was honorably discharged and transferred to the Reserve of the Air Force in the grade of senior airman (SrA/E-4). He was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on 22 May 1994. Applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard and was demoted to the grade of airman basic (E-1); he was subsequently discharged for unsatisfactory participation and transferred to HQ ARPC on 14 June 1990.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101208

    Original file (0101208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her complete submission is at Exhibit A. Her records indicate she is currently being compensated by the DVA (see Exhibit D). Had it been determined that she was found unfit for continued military service while performing her initial active duty training, which is a distinctively separate issue, Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing would have been appropriate.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00907

    Original file (BC-2004-00907.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged after serving 19 years, 4 months, and 13 days of active and Air National Guard (ANG) service, making him just seven months and a few days short of qualifying for retirement. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY95 approved a temporary special retirement qualification authority that allowed ANG members medically disqualified with over 15 years but less than 20 years of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03278

    Original file (BC-2003-03278.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ANGI 36-3001 also gives information about how to extend members every 30 to 60 days during this time period. In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, orders placing her on active duty, extending her active duty for 13 days, and placing her on active duty for a month to perform a line of duty (LOD) determination. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A....

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803224

    Original file (9803224.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Effective Apr 95, the applicant received a 30% disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his “aortic insufficiency/stenosis with mitral valve prolapse.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that as early as 1986, the applicant was diagnosed with valvular heart disease, most likely secondary to rheumatic fever, the disease affecting the aortic as...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00908

    Original file (BC-2004-00908.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 February 2000, he met a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) wherein he was found disqualified for worldwide duty for a condition that existed prior to service (EPTS) and recommended for medical discharge. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03719

    Original file (BC-2003-03719.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00097

    Original file (BC-2004-00097.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The fact that service connected medical conditions may progress in severity in the years following discharge does not make a member eligible for service disability benefits. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force Evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment on 7 June 2004. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Med Consultant dated 20 May 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00849

    Original file (BC-2010-00849.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Further, AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, states, “separate or discharge an ANG member who is not qualified or eligible for worldwide deployment. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01262

    Original file (BC-2002-01262.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 July 2002 for review and response within 30 days. The applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the imposing commander or the reviewing authority abused their discretionary authority, that his substantial rights were violated during the processing of these Article...