RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00276
INDEX NUMBER: 145.00
COUNSEL: XXX
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
It appears the applicant is requesting his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be
corrected to reflect that he was medically discharged; however
the applicants request is unclear.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He provided his military medical records from 1988 to 1991, to
include time stationed at Nellis Air Force to the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA). He was medically disqualified from
worldwide duty; however, his records do not state a reason, but
it happened. Today, he is permanently disabled and has been
denied treatment at the DVA for years.
In support of his appeal, the applicant submits copies of his DD
Form 214, Honorable Discharge Certificate, and medical
documentation.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant completed his initial active duty training (IADT)
from 14 April 1986 to 16 July 1986. He was relieved from his
Reserve assignment and honorably discharged under the provisions
of AFR 35-41, Volume III, Separation Procedures for US Air Force
Reserve Members, (medical disqualification), effective 1 July
1991. His discharge orders reflect his reenlistment eligibility
as eligible with waiver.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFRC/SGP provides no recommendation. SGP states the applicant
was medically disqualified for service due to Pancreatitis
requiring maintenance of a special restricted fat free diet. His
condition was deemed incompatible with service in the Reserves.
There is no indication the condition was service connected;
therefore, the applicant was not afforded the opportunity to
process through the disability evaluation system (DES). The
applicants contention with the DVA likely results from the fact
there is no evidence of a service connection.
The complete SGP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFRC/A1K provides no recommendation. A1K states the DD Form 214
correctly documents the applicants active duty service. The
applicant was an Air Reserve Component member, which upon his
separation from the Air Force Reserve on 1 July 1991, did not
meet any of the conditions that would require the completion of a
DD Form 214. The military records provided by the applicant
indicate he performed active duty service for the purpose of
basic training and security specialist technical school for the
period 14 April through 16 July 1986.
The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
On 6 August 2010, copies of the Air Force evaluations were sent
to the applicant for review and comment. As of this date, this
office has received no response (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
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 note that the DD Form 149
submitted by the applicant is unclear on the type of correction
he seeks from the Board so there is no basis to consider this
request. While ARPC has provided advisories in support of the
applicants request, they too, conclude that the applicants
request is unclear. As such, the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or
injustice. If the applicant resubmits his application with a
specific request, the Board would be willing to reconsider his
application. In view of the above, we find no 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-2010-00276 in Executive Session on 19 October 2010,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Record.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/SGP, dated 19 Jul 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 22 Jul 10
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 10.
Panel Chair AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2008-04519
SGP notes to be eligible for medical retirement, the applicant must have incurred or aggravated a disqualifying condition in the line of duty. A Line of Duty (LOD) determination was provided for the diagnosis of right acoustic neuroma; however, it was not processed beyond the medical reviewer and no final determination is provided. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 11...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01051
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01051 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be paid Incapacitation Pay, in behalf of her late husband, for the period 1 October 2009 through 13 January 2010. We note the Air Force offices of primary responsibility recommend granting the decedents widow incapacitation pay for the requested...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01031
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibits B and C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/SGP recommends denial. The complete SGP evaluation is attached at Exhibit B. AFRC/A1K states that, absent a medical determination from an authoritative medical source validating the medical condition presented by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02444
A complete copy of the AFRC/SGP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFRC/A1K recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not provided any supporting documentation that substantiates that a DD Form 214 should have been issued for the period of service in question (i.e., active duty orders reflecting that she completed 90 continuous days or more of active duty, or reflecting that she has been involuntarily mobilized during the event of a national emergency or war under 10 USC 12301, 12302, 12304,...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01227
It is unclear why no medical documentation was provided or why the case was not completed. In this case, he is not eligible for active duty orders. We note that the Air Force offices of primary responsibility state the applicants medical condition was not found to be in the line of duty; therefore no eligibility for active duty orders or pay exists.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-00548
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/SGP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of the PH. In this regard, we note the evidence of record clearly substantiates the applicant was acting as a member of the NYCPD bomb squad during the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City and that he was not in a military status. Regarding the applicant’s request for award of the PH, we note the National Defense Authorization...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00701
As a result of the investigation, the recommended finding was "In Line of Duty." As a result of the investigation, the recommended finding was "In Line of Duty." The applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, insufficient evidence has been provided showing that at the time of his separation, he suffered from a medical condition that should have been evaluated in the disability evaluation system.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00064
The Board further noted that after the applicants injury in Germany, he was returned to full duty after receiving occupational therapy, and that his recent injury happened during civilian employment, and therefore was EPTS. The second injury to the members wrist occurred in civilian status in 2005, and is therefore not service connected. The complete BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03938
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was a member of the Air Force Reserve and was on active duty orders from 13 Oct 09 to 9 Jun 10. The supporting Reserve Medical Unit (RMU) was not notified of this until Apr 10; therefore, no LOD determination or profile action was taken prior her being placed on long term orders. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03317
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; medical records, letters of support, and other various documents associated with his request. Thus none of these conditions are In the Line of Duty (ILOD) as applied to Air Force disability retirement. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANTS REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...