Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02818
Original file (BC-2004-02818.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02818
            INDEX CODE:  108.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect he is entitled to receive  ten
percent disability compensation.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical
Evaluation Board, and AF Form  1180,  Action  on  Physical  Evaluation
Board Findings and Recommended Disposition, state  he  should  receive
ten percent disability.  However, he is not receiving any compensation
due to an error on his DD Form 214.

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his DD Form
214,  AF  Form  356  and  AF  Form  1180.   The  applicant’s  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his  enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on
9 December 1998 for a period of six years in the grade of airman basic
(E-1).  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-
4), with an effective date and date of rank of 22 May 2001.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was convened on 16 January  2004  and
their  diagnosis  and  findings  were:   Non-Union   of   left   first
Meratarsophalangeal Arthrodesis, with 27 March 2003 as the approximate
date of origin.  The MEB recommended referral to the Informal Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB).

On 5 February 2004,  an  Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)
convened  and  established  a  diagnosis  of  Non-Union   left   first
Metatarsophalangeal Arthrodesis.  The IPEB found the  applicant  unfit
because  of  physical  disability  and  recommended   discharge   with
severance pay, with a disability compensable rating  of  ten  percent.
On 11 February 2004, the applicant disagreed  with  the  findings  and
recommended disposition of the IPEB and requested a Formal PEB (FPEB).

On 7 April 2004, the FPEB convened and established the same  diagnosis
as the IPEB.  The FPEB recommended the applicant  be  discharged  with
severance pay, with a compensable disability rating  of  ten  percent.
The  applicant  indicated  his  disagreement  with  the  findings  and
recommended disposition of the FPEB and did not  desire  to  submit  a
rebuttal.

On 1 June 2004, the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (disability, with severance  pay).   He  had
completed a total of 5 years, 5 months and 23 days and was serving  in
the grade of senior airman  (E-4)  at  the  time  of  discharge.   The
applicant’s DD Form 214, Section 18  (Remarks),  reveals  he  received
disability severance pay in the amount of $13,605.74.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied.   DPPD  states  the
applicant is not entitled to receive a ten percent monthly  disability
compensation since he received a lump sum payment.  He would  have  to
be rated at 30 percent or more to be considered  for  a  temporary  or
permanent disability compensation (retirement).  The preponderance  of
evidence reflects no error or injustice occurred during the process to
separate the applicant.  In accordance with the provisions of military
disability laws and policy, proper  documentation  of  his  disability
separation was noted on his DD Form 214.  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  8
October 2004 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 timely filed.

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
office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden that he has suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Applicant’s DD Form 214 reveals he  received  a  disability  discharge
with severance pay in the amount of over $13,000.00 on  1  June  2004.
Inasmuch as he received a lump sum payment  (severance  pay)  and  the
severity of his condition was not assigned a compensable rating of  at
least 30%, by law, the applicant is not entitled  to  receive  monthly
disability compensation from the Department of Defense.   In  view  of
the above and absent 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 2 December 2004, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                  Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
                  Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02818.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Sep 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 28 Sep 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.




                                   MARILYN M. THOMAS
                                   Vice Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01161

    Original file (BC-2005-01161.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01161 INDEX CODE: 108.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 OCT 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect that she was honorably discharged rather than retired on Temporary Disability on 27 January...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01278

    Original file (BC-2003-01278.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. On 20 August 2001, after considering the applicant’s rebuttal letter, with attachments, the evidence and testimony presented before the FPEB, IPEB, service medical records and the medical summary leading to the MEB, SAF/MRBP concurred with the recommendations of both the IPEB and FPEB for a disposition of separation with severance pay, with a combined disability rating of ten percent. He had completed a total of 13...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03437

    Original file (BC-2003-03437.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB recommended she be continued on active duty and referred her records to the IPEB for evaluation. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant stated she is very bothered by the Air Force advisories.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00098

    Original file (BC 2014 00098.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    According to AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, dated 5 Sep 02, the Formal PEB (FPEB) recommended the applicant be permanently retired with compensable percentage of 40 percent for an unfitting condition of “chronic low back pain secondary to degenerative disk disease.” According to AF Form 1180, dated 5 Sep 02, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the FPEB. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03095

    Original file (BC-2003-03095.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 6 March 2000, the applicant submitted her rebuttal letter to SAFPC requesting a disability retirement, with a compensable disability rating of 40 percent. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant summarized the information contained in the applicant’s personnel and medical records and is of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence of the record supports a disability rating of 20 percent. A complete...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00371

    Original file (BC-2003-00371.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied. Following DPPD’s assessment, they conclude the applicant was treated fairly throughout the military Disability Evaluation System (DES) process, that he was properly rated under federal disability guidelines at the time of his evaluation, and that he was afforded the opportunity for further review as provided by federal law and policy. As...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01141

    Original file (BC-2005-01141.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The IPEB diagnosed the applicant with asthma with a disability rating of 10 percent. On 8 Nov 02, the FPEB determined that testimony and medical evidence confirmed the findings of the IPEB and maintained the same recommendation that the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a compensable disability rating of 10 percent. On 17 Dec 02, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) directed that the applicant be separated from active service for physical disability with a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04321

    Original file (BC-2011-04321.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 Sep 09, based on a review of the medical evidence the FPEB determined a formal hearing was not required and found the applicant unfit for continued military service and recommended permanent retirement with a combined compensable disability rating of 50 percent (30 percent for left total knee replacement, EPTS-Service Aggravated; 20 percent for bilateral subtalar coalition with degenerative changes, EPTS-Service Aggravation; and 10 percent for cervical spine arthritis) per the schedule...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04745

    Original file (BC-2010-04745.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04745 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force (AF) Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, be changed to reflect “yes” in Section 10, Item C, Disability was the direct result of Armed Conflict or was caused by an Instrumentality of War and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00049

    Original file (BC-2006-00049.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant’s other conditions were not separately unfitting at the time of evaluation in the disability evaluation system and did not warrant separate ratings. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the fact the applicant has been granted certain service connected disability rating from the DVA does not entitle him to Air Force disability compensation or a change in existing military disability ratings. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit...