ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02625
INDEX NUMBER: 108.00
XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: DAV
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 Feb 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The 10% disability rating she was given when removed from the
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) on 14 Jul 04 be changed to a
minimum of 30% entitling her to permanent medical retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 13 and 15 Sep 05, the AFBCMR considered the applicant’s request as
stated above and voted to deny her requests based on the
recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant (Exhibit C). In a
letter, dated 27 Dec 05 (Exhibit H), the applicant’s representative
from the DAV has submitted a letter from one of the applicant’s former
supervisors contending that the applicant’s attendance at work was
sporadic because of a severe asthmatic condition. The DAV
representative contends that this statement constitutes new evidence
warranting reconsideration of the Board’s earlier decision.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After considering the new evidence submitted by the applicant as well
as the previous evidence of record, we still do not find that the
applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice warranting the
relief requested. The statement submitted by the applicant’s previous
supervisor is not substantiated by any medical evidence and, in our
view, represents what the supervisor was told by the applicant or the
supervisor’s own opinion regarding the applicant’s absence from work.
As such, it does not rise to the level of the type of evidence needed
to establish that the applicant’s disability rating should be
increased to 30 percent and she be awarded a disability retirement.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we do not find
a basis to grant the relief requested.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2004-
02625 in Executive Session on 30 March 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit G. ROP, dated 17 Oct 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Letter, DAV, dated 27 Dec 05, w/atch.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02625
Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.” Rating guidance contained in the VASRD, Section 4.7, Higher of two evaluations, states, “Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02401
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement; copies of his AF Forms 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSGT), dated 14 May 03 and 28 Oct 03; contested EPR, closing 19 Dec 03, and letters of reference from co-workers and associates. However, he has not provided any statements from his rating chain nor official documentation (report of investigation from the IG or MEO) to prove the evaluation report is an inaccurate assessment of performance. Therefore, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02360
Her supervisor indicated on the report that feedback was provided, which is true; however, she was only provided an initial feedback. As a result when the additional rater reviewed he expedited his processing and assumed that the proper feedback had been provided based on the date of the feedback. This does not specify that the last performance feedback should be a mid-term feedback date which the applicant states she did not receive.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00326
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In her quest to become pregnant and have a family, with over 19 years of service, she elected to take the Special Separation Benefit (SSB) in order to pay for medical procedures she could not obtain in the military. Based on the documentation in the applicant’s master personnel file, she voluntarily applied to separate from the Air Force to receive the Special Separation Benefit being offered at that...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00019
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00019 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 126.04 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 JULY 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) be expunged from her records; she be awarded the Air Force Good Conduct...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00669-2
On 2 May 79, applicant submitted an application to the AFBCMR requesting medical discharge with 100% disability. The Medical Consultant states the fact that she has been granted service connection for her disability by the DVA does not entitle her to Air Force disability compensation. The Medical Consultant's evaluation, is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded that she was not fit for...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02534
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS She underwent her TDRL re-evaluation in May 09 and the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), after reviewing the results of the examination, recommended her removal from the TDRL and subsequent disability discharge with a disability rating of ten percent. In her rebuttal to SAFPC, she noted concern with her disability rating and felt that if she was unfit for duty, she should be given a disability rating of 30 percent, or be...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00068-3
However, since no new and relevant evidence has been provided, we find the request does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the additional evidence presented did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application....
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00105
On 16 Jun 10, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) reviewed the case file and medical records and also recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent for diagnosis of POTS using VASRD code 8299-8210. Her condition has not changed in severity, the DVA made their rating by correctly applying the laws for analogous ratings. In this respect, the applicant is requesting that her medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement based on the 80 percent...