RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00471 

INDEX CODE: 108.00 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be changed to reflect a medical retirement with a 
separation code of “SFJ” (Disability, Permanent), versus being 
separated for sufficient service for retirement with a separation 
code of “RBD” (Sufficient Service for Retirement). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was being processed for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) 
because he was on a physical profile for more than a year. He 
was told by the Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer that 
based on her experience, he would most likely be medically 
retired. Before the results were returned, he interviewed and 
accepted a federal civil service job. It wasn’t until after he 
started his new job that he discovered his Service Computation 
Date could have been changed to allow him to take advantage of a 
higher leave accrual rate if he had been medically discharged. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of a 
Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) memorandum, Physical Profile 
Serial Report, MEB documents, his DD Form 214, electronic 
communications, Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) 
documents, civilian employment documents, military discharge 
order, medical documentation, and DVA Rating Decisions. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served from 23 October 1981 to 31 May 2006 and was progressively 
promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) with a date of 
rank of 1 October 2001. 

 


On 20 December 2005, an MEB diagnosed the applicant with Cervical 
Spondylosis with Myelopathy and referred the applicant’s records 
to an IPEB. The IPEB findings and recommendations, dated 
29 December 2005, diagnosed the applicant with Chronic Neck Pain 
associated with C4-7 Fusion without evidence of Myelomalacia, 
Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and Asymmetric High Frequency Hearing 
Loss. The IPEB found the applicant not unfit for duty because of 
physical disability and recommended he be returned to duty. 

 

On 31 May 2006, the applicant was voluntarily released from 
active duty and retired effective 1 June 2006 for sufficient 
service for retirement. He served 24 years, 7 months, and 8 days 
on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the applicant applied 
for a regular service retirement in January 2006, requesting a 
discharge date of 31 May 2006. His DD Form 214 correctly lists 
the reason for separation as sufficient service for retirement as 
he had the required 20 years of service. “RBD” is the correct 
separation code for a member who separates with a regular 
retirement and not for medical reasons. The preponderance of 
evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the 
applicant’s disability processing. 

 

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states the applicant has not 
provided evidence of fraud, mistake of law, or substantial new 
evidence to show he is authorized a physical disability 
retirement. The fact the applicant has a disability rating by 
the DVA and is authorized disability compensation by the DVA does 
not mean the Air Force should change his non-disability 
retirement to a disability retirement for any purpose, whether or 
not he would be eligible for more federal civil service 
entitlements if the Air Force retired him for disability. 

 

The complete DPSOR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 13 August 2010 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). 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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case and do not find that it supports a determination that he 
was improperly retired. We note the applicant’s assertion that 
his records should be corrected to show he received a medical 
retirement; however, we note that an IPEB found his medical 
condition did not prevent him from reasonably performing the 
duties of his office, grade, rank or rating; therefore, he was 
returned to duty. In view of the above and absent persuasive 
evidence the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, 
appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate 
standards were not applied, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Forces offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their 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 basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-00471 in Executive Session on 30 September 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00471: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Feb 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 18 May 10. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 27 May 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 10. 

 

 

 

 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 Panel Chair