RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00549
INDEX CODE: 108.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be awarded the original amount of her estimated disability
severance pay.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was not originally happy with the results of the Informal Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB) findings of discharge with 10% disability and
severance pay but was also told that if she fought the decision, then
the offer would be off the table and she could receive a lot less.
She was given an estimate ($79,092.00) of her severance pay and three
days with which to make a decision to accept or appeal further. The
estimate, she was told, would probably be higher as all her service
time would be counted at the final computation. She was never told
that only her active service counted towards the severance total and
she was therefore under the impression that all her service time was
used in the computation. Consequently, for fear this offer would be
the best offer and only having three days to make the decision, she
thought she could use the severance to pay off bills and maybe invest.
The actual amount she received ($46,137.00) was much less than the
original estimated amount as only her active service counted towards
computing her severance. She contends she has been a good soldier for
over 19 years (a lot of it overseas) and does not deserve to be thrown
out like yesterday’s garbage. She intends to fight for the full
amount of severance she made her good faith decision on and hopes to
regain some financial security
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement, letters of support, disability severance pay estimates,
pertinent email trails, PEB findings, pertinent discharge paperwork,
copies of civilian and military medical records, and line of duty
(LOD) determination paperwork.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, a former member of the Oklahoma Air National Guard
(OKANG) was on orders from 25 March to 3 April 2004. Her orders sent
her to Keesler AFB, MS for 10 days of Annual Training (AT) for an
Operational Readiness Exercise (ORE). On 1 April 2004, she injured
her shoulder while delivering munitions on the flight line. On 2
April 2004, she was sent to the Keesler AFB emergency room where she
was treated and instructed to continue follow-up care at her home
unit.
On 6 April 2004 an LOD determination was conducted wherein her injury
was found to be in LOD. On 2 October 2004, she was referred to the
IPEB for Cervical/Thoracic Strain. On 18 November 2004, the IPEB
found her unfit and recommended discharge with severance pay with a
disability rating of 10%. On 26 November 2004, AFPC/DPPD produced a
disability severance pay estimate, which was forwarded to her unit.
This initial estimate was calculated on the belief the applicant had
18 years, 9 months, and 13 days of active duty service. On 2 December
2004, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of
the IPEB. When the final disability severance pay estimate was
initiated an error was found that showed applicant’s total active
federal military service (TAFMS) was actually only 3 years, 9 months
and 24 days.
She was discharged from the OKANG for physical disability on
25 January 2005, with disability severance pay and a 10% compensable
rating. She was serving in the grade of master sergeant (E7) at the
time of her discharge and had served a total of 18 years, 9 months,
and 13 days of military service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states after reviewing her record
they have found the AFPC Disability Division made an error in the
calculation of her estimated disability severance pay. They note
however, that although regretful, the applicant was advised that the
amount of disability severance she was given was an estimate and that
many factors not positively known may affect the final disposition of
severance pay. DPPD notes that the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS) calculates the final severance pay amount. Therefore,
the preponderance of evidence reflects that she was advised the
documentation she received pertaining to her severance pay was only an
estimate.
DPPD’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant’s response to the Air Force Advisory iterates her contention
she was never told the amount of severance pay she was entitled to
would be calculated on her active military service only and would not
count her inactive service. She based her decision on the IPEB’s
recommendation on the original estimated amount of disability
severance pay she was given. She questions whether or not all her
years of service were for nothing. She believes she is destined to
lose everything she has worked for. The error was not hers.
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 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 its rationale as the basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice but a regrettable misunderstanding. We note that
while HQ AFPC Disability Division incorrectly calculated her severance
pay estimate, the applicant was advised the figure arrived at prior to
her final processing was only an estimate and factors not known may
affect the final disposition of severance pay. The Defense Finance
and Accounting Service (DFAS) calculated her final severance pay based
on the applicant’s total active federal military service and she was
compensated accordingly. 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-
2005-00549 in Executive Session on 7 July 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 10 Jan 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01240
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%. She is not receiving a check because she is listed as being on the TDRL and not retired. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00052
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that at the time, the applicant did not contest the IPEB’s decision to decrease the 22% disability rating to 10% because his service medical records indicated the condition existed prior to service. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a member of the Air Force Reserve, was processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) when her disability case was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) in December 1999, for a diagnosis of dysthymic disorder. Counsel provided a statement supporting the applicant’s requests to change the IG findings; credit satisfactory service to 20 plus years; change the AF...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03145
He was told repeatedly during this time that all AGR, Title 10 members were put into “Returned To Duty” status since active duty couldn’t tell the ANG what to do with their people. In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and copies of pertinent medical records, Congressional inquiries, retirement documents, and MEB and IPEB documentation. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00607
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Prior to his separation he was briefed that his severance pay would be calculated based on his (total years of service) times (base pay X 2). The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He finds it difficult to believe that his information could have been misunderstood given the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00154
The IPEB noted that since her medical condition was a result of an accident (injury) that was determined to be not in the line of duty, her medical condition was not compensable under the provisions of military disability law/policy. Even if the applicant’s tumor existed prior to the accident, there is a preponderance of evidence that supports the finding that the accident caused the hemorrhaging of the tumor. In the applicant's case, the Air Force considered her hypothyroidism,...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 03552
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03552 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to reflect her release from active duty as 8 Nov 05, instead of 4 Oct 05. On 4 Oct 05, the applicant was relieved from active duty and issued a narrative reason for...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Retirements Branch, Directorate, Personnel Program Mgmt, AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed this application and states the estimate the applicant received on 2 December 1997 clearly states “the dollar amount shown below is an estimate of your retirement pay.” This document also directs members to “Contact DFAS-CL for official retired pay estimates.” There is no evidence the applicant ever consulted that agency. They produced a...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01026
Whereas the Air Force rates a member's disability based on the degree of severity at the time of separation. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied. Whereas the Air Force rates a member's disability based on the degree of severity at the time of separation.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03169
Disability processing records reveal a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was initiated on 17 Jun 03, and the results was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) which ultimately recommended she be discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay with a 10 percent disability rating. Because her disability rating was rated less than 30 percent disabling, she was not eligible for a disability retirement under the provision of Title 10, USC, Section 1201. Based on a...