RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01299
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His retirement pay grade be changed from captain (O-3) to major
(O-4) or lieutenant colonel (O-5).
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in June 1986. The
Air Force admitted it could not ensure he could be assigned to a
base which had a neurologist who treats MS; therefore, he was told
to stay home. After a few months, he was retired without the
opportunity to find legal counsel. He was retired with ten years
and two months of service. Another year or two would have
resulted in his promotion to major. He firmly believes his sudden
retirement was to prevent him from being promoted.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a letter from his
congressional members office.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
__________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
served on active duty from 26 June 1981 through 9 August 1991. He
was progressively promoted to the grade of captain effective
26 June 1985.
On 20 June 1991, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB)
reviewed the applicants diagnosis of MS, progressive, without
complete remission, with bowel and bladder incontinence,
paresthias, bilateral foot drop, balance problems, right (major)
upper extremity involvement, and organic mental changes
(depression); required foot drop brace bilateral, and cane. The
IPEB recommended placement on the Temporary Disability Retired
List (TDRL) with a disability rating of 80 percent. The applicant
concurred with the findings on 20 June 1991. Orders were issued
that placed the applicant on the TDRL effective 10 August 1991 and
retired him in the grade of captain.
On 18 September 1992, the IPEB reviewed the mandatory TDRL re-
evaluation narrative and recommended the applicant be permanently
retired with a disability rating of 100 percent for diagnosis of
MS, chronic, progressive, with bladder dysfunction. The IPEB also
noted he was unemployable. The applicant concurred with the
findings on 18 October 1992. Special Order ACD-63, dated
8 October 1992, removed him from the TDRL effective 18 October
1992, and permanently retired him with a disability rating of 100
percent in the retired grade of captain.
__________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states that according to
AFPC/DPSOO, Officer Promotion Branch, the applicant met the
Calendar Year 1991A Major Central Selection Board, but was not
selected for promotion. Once a member is placed on the TDRL, they
are in a retired status and are not eligible to meet a promotion
board. Since the applicant was not selected for promotion to the
grade of major, his retirement orders are correct in showing his
pay grade as captain. The preponderance of evidence reflects that
no error or injustice occurred during the disability process.
The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. DPSOO states that no evidence has
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or
injustice. Further, to grant a direct promotion would be unfair
to all the other officers who have extremely competitive records
and also did not get promoted. In addition, there is no evidence
to support his claim that he would have been promoted had he been
on active duty to meet his primary board.
The compete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D.
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 6 August 2010, for review and comments within 30
days. 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 an error or an injustice. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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.
________________________________________________________________
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-2010-01299 in Executive Session on 14 December 2010, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01299:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 10, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 4 Jun 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 9 Jul 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 10.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00733
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 214 reflects he was transferred to the TDRL with a 50 percent disability rating; however, it should reflect his subsequent removal from the TDRL and permanent retirement with a 30 percent disability rating. In regards to the applicants request to correct his DD Form 214 to reflect his permanent disability retirement with a combined disability rating of 30 percent, we note that a DD Form...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03494
The DPSD complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Apr 11 for review and comment within 30 days. 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...
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-00428
The applicant's records reflect in April 2002, he self-referred to Life Skills due to an anxiety while flying. The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicants request for a hearing by the FPEB and change in his disability rating. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant's evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-04143
The Medical Consultant states the applicant's request for a change from a 30 percent to a 100 percent disability rating with medical retirement must be considered in view of the medical evidence available at the time of separation from active duty service and release from the TDRL. Hence, the Medical Consultant identifies no medical basis for the recommendation to retroactively assign a 100 percent disability rating for the applicant's ulcerative colitis. After thoroughly reviewing the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03311
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. However, after admittedly making false statements regarding the extent of his injuries, the applicant's neurogenic bladder injuries were subsequently rated by the IPEB at 60...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01183
________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her injury to the neck was caused by her Interceptor Body Armor (IBA), incurred while engaged in hazardous service and/or was a direct result of combat. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial, stating, in part, a preponderance of evidence reflects no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01045
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is located at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. However, the PEB rates only the unfitting disability as it exists at the time of the board. The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04059
On 19 August 2008, the IPEB found the applicant fit and recommended Return to Duty, finding the medical condition "does not prevent you from reasonably performing the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating." Therefore, the Medical Consultant concludes the applicant's MS was not a medically unfitting condition at the time of separation and proper administrative procedures followed for determining fitness for duty. Exhibit G. Letter, Counsel, dated 26 May 2014.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00322
On 9 September 2003, the applicant was placed on the TDRL. The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 24 April 2009 for review and response within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2009-00322 in Executive...