RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02102
INDEX NUMBER: 136.00
COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His retirement date be changed to 4 Mar 79, to include his time
spent on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL); and his
total service for pay be changed from 18 years, 10 months, and
3 days to 20 years, 6 months, and 4 days, which would enable him to
meet the service requirement for Concurrent Retirement and
Disability Pay (CRDP).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The retirement date reflected on his DD Form 214, Report of
Separation from Active Duty, does not reflect the correct
retirement date of 4 Mar 79, as indicated on his AFMPC Form 134,
Retirement Order, dated 13 Feb 79. The incorrect retirement date
(22 Jun 77) was not discovered until it resulted in his denial of
“concurrent pay” authorized by DOD Appropriations Act H.R. 1588.
He was contacted by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS) and informed that since his retirement record reflected he
was retired on 22 Jun 77, with only 18 years, 10 months, and 3
days, he was not entitled to concurrent pay.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted copies of his
Retirement Orders, dated 1 Jun 77 and 13 Feb 79; a copy of DD Form
214, dated 22 Jun 77; a letter from the Disabled American Veterans,
dated 11 Mar 81, and a copy of his Retirement Account Statement,
dated 2 Dec 03.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s name was placed on the TDRL effective 22 Jun 77. At
that time, he had completed 18 years, 10 months, and 3 days of
active federal military service. He was permanently retired for
disability effective 4 Mar 79, with a disability rating of 60%.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of applicant’s request stating, in
part, applicant was advised the period on the TDRL is not
creditable for active duty service for retirement.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
By letter, dated 26 Aug 04, applicant reiterated his original
contentions and noted his displeasure with the advisory opinion and
correction of military records process.
Applicant’s complete response 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. We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the
case. However, after careful review of the available records, it
appears he has been credited with all active service creditable
under the governing regulation and laws in effect at the time of
his disability retirement. The applicant was found unfit for
continued military service, placed on the TDRL and subsequently
permanently retired with a 60 percent disability rating under the
provisions of Title 10, USC, Section 1201. A veteran’s period of
time on the TDRL is not creditable for active service. We
therefore 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. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2004-02102 in Executive Session on 1 September 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 May 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 21 Jul 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Aug 04.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01097
On 30 Sep 89, he was removed from the TDRL and retired in the grade of master sergeant with a compensable rating of 30%. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Jun 04 for review and comment within 30 days. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01241
On 17 Jun 87, the Air Force PEB recommended he be permanently retired from the Air Force with a combined disability rating of 40%. His records show documented evidence that he had complained of back pain as early as 1963, two years prior to being in Thailand. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reiterates his account of the incident in which he was injured, provides...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01130
On 5 Sep 86, the Formal PEB (FPEB) found him unfit for duty with a diagnosis of coronary artery disease and hypercalciuric nephrolithiasis and recommended he be placed on the TDRL with a compensable percentage of 100%. There is little doubt his service connected medical conditions occurred while in service performing duties related to his Air Force specialty. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01155
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01155 INDEX NUMBER: 136.00 XXXXXXX XX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be corrected to reflect that he completed over 20 years of active service to enable him to be eligible for the Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payment (CRDP) Program. Applicant’s complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01771
DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his brain or spinal cord condition is not combat related. There are no entries in his service medical record back to 1960 for complaint of back pain or back injury. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01799
The CRDP is applicable to all retirees who have a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated service-connected disability of 50 percent of higher, with the exception of disability retirees with less than 20 years of service, and retirees who have combined their military and civil service time to qualify for a civil service retirement. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01208
On the second evaluation, however, the board determined his status had stabilized, but was still unfitting, and recommended permanent disability retirement with a 60% rating. The applicant agreed with the findings, and officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force directed he be removed from the TDRL and permanently retired for disability at 60%, effective 13 Aug 80, under the provisions of Title 10, USC, Section 1201. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03895
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03895 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 Jun 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical conditions, hypertensive heart disease and impaired hearing, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02593
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02593 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 DEC 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical condition, impaired hearing and tinnitus, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2004-01886
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. c. Is entitled to retired pay, notwithstanding that such retired pay may be reduced due to receipt of Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability compensation. We noted 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...