Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01953
Original file (BC-2010-01953.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01953 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her narrative reason for separation of “Released due to 
Demobilization” be changed. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was not released due to demobilization and her unit was 
still mobilized when she was discharged. She had two years left 
on her Reserve duty. 

 

She had a mental break down and was locked up in a psychiatric 
unit and was not able to return to her job. 

 

Her unit sent her home without out-processing her. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Available records reflect the applicant entered a period of 
active duty service on 14 Feb 03 and was honorably discharged on 
27 Jul 03 due to demobilization. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFRC/SG states that after a review of all medical databases, 
they were unable to locate documentation or information 
regarding any hospitalization or psychiatric diagnosis. 
Further, based on the complete lack of supporting medical 
documentation, they cannot provide further comment at this time. 

 

The complete HQ AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit B. 


 

HQ AFRC/A1K recommends denial. A1K states that since the 
applicant has not provided documentation that warrants 
HQ AFRC/SG’s support of her assertion, there is no basis for the 
requested change. 

 

The complete HQ AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant questions the legality of her discharge and the 
whereabouts of her medical records. She provides a timeline of 
actions. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at 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 error or 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 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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 Docket Number 
BC-2010-01953 in Executive Session on 16 November 2010, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 XXXX, Panel Chair 

 XXXX, Member 

 XXXX, Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFRC/SGP, dated 9 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFRC/A1K, dated 13 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Oct 10. 

 

 

 

 

 XXXX 

 Panel Chair 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01466

    Original file (BC 2013 01466.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial, stating, in part, that the applicant's case file reflects that she was denied a participation waiver by the AFRC/SG staff for the period of time in question. While the form is not signed, the Air Force Reserve Surgeon General (AFRC/SG) notes that the applicant was submitted for a participation waiver; however, her request was denied. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02352

    Original file (BC 2013 02352.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02352 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive pay and points for the period Dec 10 through Nov 12. Her medical facility failed to provide the proper documentation to the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) medical board, causing her referral to a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB)....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04564

    Original file (BC-2010-04564.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Air Force Reserve enlisted members are recommended for promotion by the assigned supervisor and approved by the promotion authority. As for her request related to retirement, Air Force Reserve members must have 20 years of satisfactory service or have 15 but less than 20 years...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04582

    Original file (BC-2010-04582.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her involuntary demotion order, a copy of NRPCC 1070/124, Naval Reserve Personnel Center Annual Retirement Point Record, a copy of a letter from the Naval Reserve Force Commander, an excerpt from AFI 36-2503-, Administrative Demotion of Airmen, and copies of her LES. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05366

    Original file (BC 2013 05366.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Air Force members must meet the medical standards and applicable Reserve medical guidance to be considered medically qualified to participate in any pay or point gaining activity In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2254, Volume 1, Reserve Personnel Participation. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03938

    Original file (BC-2010-03938.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-01051

    Original file (BC-2010-01051.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 decedent’s widow incapacitation pay for the requested...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00472

    Original file (BC-2011-00472.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 3 Nov 11, a letter requesting additional information (spousal concurrence) from the applicant was forwarded (Exhibit E). As such, we believe reasonable doubt has been established that although the applicant was sent the form to make an SBP election, she was not properly advised or informed of the requirement to return the form with her stated election. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01227

    Original file (BC-2013-01227 .txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 applicant’s medical condition was not found to be in the line of duty; therefore no eligibility for active duty orders or pay exists.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03317

    Original file (BC 2013 03317.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...