RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01603
INDEX NUMBER: 145.00
XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 NOV 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect he served 20 years of active duty
service.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was informed he could not stay in the Air Force because he was
ineligible for world wide duty. If given the opportunity he could have
served 3 additional months, which would have made him eligible for a 20-
year retirement and eligible to receive concurrent retirement disability
pay (CRDP).
In support of his request, the applicant submits AF Form 356, Findings and
Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, and a Department
of Veterans Affairs Letter stating he is permanently and totally disabled
due to service connected disabilities.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 December 1970, and was
progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant.
He was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) on 20 August
1990, due to a physical disability.
On 2 May 1992, he was removed from the TDRL and permanently retired with a
70 percent disability rating. He completed 19 years, 8 months and 20 days
of active duty service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states the veteran’s request to amend or
change his DD Form 214 would be in violation of Air Force Instructions and
is not authorized.
According to DPPD the applicant’s DD Form 214 cannot be amended or changed
to reflect that he completed twenty years of active duty, when in fact he
only completed 19 years, 8 months and 20 days of active duty.
The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Jun
05, 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we are not
persuaded by the evidence provided that the reason for his retirement from
the Air Force was inappropriate, erroneous, or that he was denied rights to
which he was entitled. The Board notes the applicant was found unfit for
worldwide duty and was subsequently processed through the Disability
Evaluation System. The Board also notes, the applicant agreed with the
findings and recommendations of the Physical Evaluation Board and was
medically retired with a 70 percent compensable disability rating. Further,
concurrent retirement disability pay is a new program for members who have
earned a length of service retirement defined in law by completing 20 years
of service and the applicant is not eligible for this entitlement since he
did not complete 20 years of 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. Accordingly, 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 24 August 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2005-01603:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 May 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 3 Jun 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 05.
KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
Panel Chair
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00029
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00029 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 JUL 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to show she served a full 20 years of active service; or, she be reinstated back into the military to...
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-2004-01846
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00683
At the time of removal from the TDRL, the IPEB determined that the evidence of the medical evaluation warranted a rating less than 30 percent and, with his concurrence, the applicant was discharged with severance pay in accordance with law and DOD policy. A service medical record entry after the PEB recommending placement on the TDRL but before the effective date and separation from active duty dated 20 October 1994 indicates the applicant was doing well without symptoms while on...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02870
On 20 Mar 73, the Air Force PEB determined he was fit for duty, his condition existed prior to service without service aggravation, and recommended that he be removed from the TDRL. The presence of conditions that were not unfitting while in service, and were not the cause of separation or retirement, that later progress in severity causing disability resulting in service connected DVA compensation is not an unusual occurrence and is not a basis to retroactively grant military disability...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01206
Subsequent to being evaluated by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) and Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB), the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of AFR 35-4 (Placed on Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL)). Following a period of observation and treatment on TDRL status, he was permanently disability retired on 12 Jun 1986, with a disability rating of 40 percent for his condition and received pay in the grade of colonel, with over 26 years...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03123
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03123 INDEX CODE: 108.04 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 Apr 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be placed on the permanent disability retired list effective 17 Sep 05. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03250
On 14 Dec 71, the Air Force PEB recommended that the removed from the TDRL and returned to active duty. For this condition to qualify for CRSC, it must be specifically granted by the DVA as presumptive to Agent Orange exposure. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03887
There was no evidence to support a higher rating at the time of separation and the preponderance of evidence supports a disability rating of 20 percent. The BCMR Medical Advisor’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the BCMR Medical Advisor’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 12 Jan 07 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the...