RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00170
INDEX CODE: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be granted a waiver for reinstatement of 180-days medical care to
qualify for benefits under the Transitional Assistance Program (TAP).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not aware of the TRICARE medical benefits extended to him for 180-
days after his separation from military service. His coverage ended on 10
Dec 08.
The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 13 Jun 08, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of Senior
Airman for Personality Disorder. He had served 9 years, 11 months and 27
days on active duty.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSI recommends denial. DPSI states the applicant’s service time
qualified him for transitional benefits due to involuntary medical
separation on 13 Jun 08. The transitional 180-days medical benefits and 2-
years shipping privileges are reflected in the Defense Enrollment
Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) and conveyed on the DD Form 2765,
Department of Defense/Uniformed Services Identification and Privilege Card.
On 4 Jun 08, the applicant signed his DD Form 2648, Preseparation
Counseling Checklist for Active Component Service Members, indicating he
requested and received information regarding Transitional Health Benefits
and he was provided referral information.
The complete DPSI evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 Mar
09, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office
has received no response (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 an 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. 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 BC-2009-00170 in
Executive Session on 18 August 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
Mr. Dick Anderegg, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 09.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSI, dated 12 Feb 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 09.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02285
If those service members had sought clarification from an educational counselor, read the DOD or Air Force guidance that was very clear on that point, or taken other measures to make a timely decision before their separation or retirement, they could have initiated a timely transfer of benefits. The complete HQ USAF/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01680
DPSI notes the Board could find that there was an injustice if the service members were on active duty on 1 Aug 09, were not personally counseled about the need to execute a transfer while serving in the Armed Forces, and did not have ready access to DOD and Air Force guidance because of their terminal leave status. The transfer date could be effective as early as 1 Aug 09 and there would be no need to place the service member on active duty since the Transfer of Educational Benefits...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02531
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS A service member is considered to be retirement eligible if he or she has completed 20 years of active duty or 20 qualifying years of reserve service. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01985
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The KDSM is a new award and he should receive one for his time served during the period of Sep 98 through Sep 99. He was stationed in Turkey from Sep 96 through Sep 98 and should receive the SWASM for his service during that time. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 30 Oct 08, under...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02885
The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, incorrectly reflects the applicant’s separation code and narrative reason as “MBK” and “completion of required active service.” The separation code should reflect “MND” and a narrative reason of “Miscellaneous/General Reasons.” HQ AFPC/DPSOS’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOA reviewed the application and recommends denial, stating, in part, that on 15 Jun 05, the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03386
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. We, therefore, conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that his uncharacterized entry level separation be changed...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02311
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02311 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her effective date of promotion to Staff Sergeant (SSgt) (23 Jul 04) be corrected to reflect her date of rank (DOR) (1 Nov 01) with retroactive promotion pay. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-03484
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSI recommends denial and states that service members may have had the notion that being on active duty or in the Selected Reserve (SELRES) on the effective date of the law, 1 Aug 09, was enough to “vest” them with the right to...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00751
______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSI recommends the applicant's request for the Maintenance Badge be granted and the request for the Communications Badge be denied. His records do not support award of the Communications Badge. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of his request for award of the Communications Badge and we agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that no...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00416
DPPRS affirms the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and did not provide any facts warranting a change to his reenlistment eligibility code. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...