RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00184
INDEX CODE: 111.02
WOLFGANG J. MCKINNEY COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of separation (DOS) be adjusted to reflect he completed 20 years
of total active service instead of 19 years and two months.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During the late 1990’s he developed back and feet problems. In February
2001 through no fault of his own, he injured his back and feet and could
not obtain the 20 years of service needed to retire. He received a letter
from his commander stating cross training was not advantageous. His
medical problems resulted in his placement on the Temporary Disability
Retired List (TDRL). He applied for Concurrent Retirement and Disability
Pay (CRDP) and it was disapproved because he did not have 20 years of
service. He honorably served his country with the Marines, Army Guard and
the Air National Guard. His goal was to retire with more than 20 years of
active service but he was medically retired within 10 months of completing
20 years.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 15 December 2001, the applicant was placed on the TDRL for sequela of
chronic low back pain with additional diagnoses of major depression and Pes
Planus.
On 20 May 2003, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) determined his medical
condition had remained essentially unchanged since he was placed on the
TDRL and would not likely change over the next several years. The PEB
found him unfit and recommended a permanent retirement with a disability
rating of 30% for major depression associated with Pes Planus and
degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. On 15 June 2003, he
concurred with the findings of the PEB.
On 19 June 2003, he was removed from the TDRL and on 9 July 2003, he was
permanently retired in the grade of staff sergeant with a compensable
rating of 30 percent for physical disability.
He served 19 years, 2 months and 21 days on active duty.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states members are eligible for CRDP if
they have twenty or more years of active service. The applicant does not
have the required twenty years of active service time to apply for CRDP.
The complete DPSD evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial. DPSIPV states the applicant did not
complete 20 years of active duty.
The complete DPSIPV evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded stating he initially entered the military in
November 1974, not August 1986. CRDP is not the reason he wants his
records corrected. He did not ask to be injured without an opportunity to
retire. He continues to live with mental problems.
His complete response is at Exhibit F.
________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review of the evidence
of record and careful consideration of the applicant's contentions, we find
no evidence that the decision to retire him for disability reasons was
erroneous and are not persuaded by his uncorroborated assertions that he
has been the victim of an injustice. Therefore, we agree with the opinions
and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and
adopt their rationale as basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. Absent persuasive evidence
that to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of 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 BC-2008-00184 in
Executive Session on 23 October 2008 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member
Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 May 2008, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Master Military Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 14 July 2008, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 18 July 2008.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 August 2008.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, not dated.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04321
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 | 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-03936
His narrative reason for separation was Disability, Temporary. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. The applicant does not contest in his application that he had any additional active military...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-03839
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01752
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Over several months she noted improvement with Zoloft, which when discontinued in December1998, she again became depressedand it was reintroduced.In June 1999, she became overwhelmed by a move to a new duty station and...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01126
The PEB determined the applicant would be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a disability rating of 40 percent. AFPC/DPSD’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that Title 37 reflects time spent on the TDRL could be counted as creditable service. Regarding his argument that the DoD disability instruction authorizes credit towards...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00097
Since he had over 19 years and 6 months of active duty service the personnel officer assured him that he would be credited with a full 20 years of service. As of 9 February 2011 the VA advised him that his disability rating had been determined to be 70 percent based on a number of factors and his VA pension would no longer be withheld from his Air Force retirement pay, however, Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) did not agree and he was advised that he did not qualify for...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00933
To be eligible, members are required to have twenty or more years of active service or twenty good satisfactory years. After careful consideration of the available evidence, the Board did not find that an error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time of his separation. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00766
The Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member's condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. Following this reasoning one could conclude that assigning the rating as determined by the DVA based on evidence during the members active service would be proper, since it was based upon clinical assessments conducted before her actual date of discharge. c. All requested medical documentation should be supplied to the Air...