RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03328
INDEX NUMBER: 145.00
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her records be corrected to reflect she was separated on 4 May 1997,
instead of 4 August 1995.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She agreed and signed documents removing her from the Temporary Disability
Retired List (TDRL) and permanently retiring her on 10 April 1997, with an
effective date of 4 May 1997. She was informed that she would receive the
same benefits as all 20-year Air Force veterans. Since 4 May 1997, was not
used on her DD Form 214, she has lost out on concurrent receipt or military
retired pay.
In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement, a
copy of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty,
Removal from the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) and Permanent
Retirement letter, and Department of the Air Force Special Order No. ACD-
0913.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 July 1976, and was
progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant.
She was placed on the TDRL on 4 August 1995, due to a physical disability
(chronic low back pain with degenerative disc and joint disease and small
L5-S1 herniated nucleus pulposus) after 19 years and 13 days of active duty
service. On 4 May 1997, she was removed from the TDRL and permanently
retired in the grade of technical sergeant with a disability rating of
50 percent.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states that a review of the applicant’s
military personnel and medical records reveals she was issued a DD Form
214, dated 4 August 1995, when she was placed on TDRL under AFI-36-3203.
Her DD Form 214 properly annotated her status as retired. Additionally,
Special Order Number ACD-1621, dated 26 June 1995, was issued indicating
member was temporarily retired with a physical disability with a 40 percent
rating. Item number 28, Type of Separation (Retired), on the DD Form 214
is correct in that it reflects her status at the time of placement on the
TDRL. On 24 March 1997, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) recommended
that member be retired with a 50 percent permanent disability rating, she
concurred with the recommended findings. She was subsequently retired with
a disability rating of 50 percent and Retirement Order, Number ACD-0913,
dated 14 April 1997, was issued.
The DD Form 214 only reflects service information for the period the member
is on active duty. The period a military member is on the TDRL is not
considered active duty and cannot be counted as active service for
retirement purposes. Copies of Special Order Number ACD-0913, dated 14
April 1997, are attached along with the Memorandum from Secretary of the
Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) indicating her removal from the TDRL
and permanent retirement under the provisions of 10 United States Code
(USC) 1201.
Public Law 107-314 and its current amendment are explicit in its
eligibility criteria concerning Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC)
and Concurrent Receipt Disability Payments (CRDP). Until the law is
changed or amended, the United States Air Force and DoD are bound to
enforce the current eligibility restrictions. Following our assessment, we
concluded the veteran does not meet the basic CRSC or CRDP eligibility
under the law of having 20 years of active military service as defined by
Title 10, Sections 12732 or 12733.
Having reviewed all her medical and personnel records, DPPD states they
found no basis to correct her DD Form 214 to reflect a change on her
separation of service. The data reflected on the DD Form 214 dated 4
August 1995 is accurate. The veteran’s request to amend or change her DD
Form 214 would be in violation of Air Force Instructions and is not
authorized.
The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred
during the disability process. Proper documentation was noted on the
applicant’s DD Form 214 in accordance with the provisions of military
disability laws and policy.
The DPPD evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 Nov
04, 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. The Board noted that in accordance with
Section 641 of Public Law 108-136, eligible recipients of CRDP must have a
service related DVA disability rating of 50 percent or higher and have
served a minimum of 20 years active military service to be eligible for
CRDP. Furthermore, the period a military member is on the TDRL is not
considered active duty and cannot be counted as active service for
retirement purposes or reflected on the DD Form 214 as active duty service.
Therefore, 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 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 13 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2004-03328:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 9 Nov 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR , dated 19 Nov 04.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02049
On 17 May 1996, the applicant’s case was forwarded to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) and they recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating. The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) determines if the servicemember should be processed through the DES when a member is determined to be disqualified for continued military service. As noted by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, the time spent on the TDRL is not creditable...
The Statement of Understanding, dated 14 November 1995 indicates that upon promotion to the grade of captain, applicant would incur a one-year active duty service commitment (ADSC) from the effective date of promotion. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Officer Promotion Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, states that the applicant was denied promotion to the grade of captain due to her inability to complete the one-year active duty...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01370
A complete copy of the DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommended denial indicating the applicant’s DD Form 214 not be amended or changed reflect that she was medically retired on a later date since she was permanently retired after her DD Form 214 was issued. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01829
He had taken non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications for several years which gave only temporary relief of his symptoms. Unfortunately, the applicant’s retirement order cannot be amended or changed to reflect that he was medically retired on a later date since he was permanently retired after his DD Form 214 was issued. The evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03623
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03623 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given credit for 20 years of active service toward retirement. He believes because of this injustice he should be credited with the 45 days of service in order to qualify for the Concurrent Retirement Disability Pay (CRDP). No provisions of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01846
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of applicant’s request stating, in part, that time spent on the TDRL does not count as active duty service for retirement. A review of applicant’s permanent disability retirement order reveals no errors in the computation of his active service for retirement. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should...
Therefore, the applicant was issued a DD Form 214 for the 15-18 January 1991 period because it was in direct support of ODS/S. Since the injury she received while on active duty in 1991 caused her to be permanently retired for disability in 1995, she should have been placed on the TDRL in 1991 and not ordered to participate while disabled. 4 96-02626 A complete copy of the additional Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit H. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01197
On 22 Feb 02, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) recommended the applicant be placed on the TDRL with a disability rating of 30% for PTSD with major depression. An 18 Aug 03 Narrative Summary revealed she continued to experience ongoing neurovegetative signs and symptoms of depression and breakthrough PTSD symptoms with frequent flashbacks of her father’s death. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01788
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His retirement date from the Air Force should read 1 April 1978, per Special Orders AC-007859, dated 8 April 1977, giving him 20 years and 28 days of the active military service to qualify for CRDP. In support of his appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, AF Form 2653, Retirement Special Order-Physical Unfit, AFMPC...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00117
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She took her oath of office and became a member of the Air Force on 29 Mar 63, which would credit her with over 20 years of service for purposes of qualifying her for the CRDP. 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...