RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04276 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from 
Active Duty, be corrected as follows: 

 

 a. Show the correct date of her discharge. 

 

 b. Show her correct rank at time of discharge. 

 

 c. List all awards and decorations she was awarded or is 
entitled to (partially administratively corrected). 

 

 d. List the training she received while on active duty (administratively corrected). 

 

2. It appears the applicant is requesting her separation with a 
20% disability rating be changed to a medical retirement with a 
100% disability rating. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. Her DD Form 214 does not properly list her rank and any 
training she received. 

 

2. She served on active duty longer than what is indicated on 
her DD Form 214. 

 

3. She did not receive individual awards she earned from 
assisting with recovery from a tornado and for tackling a runaway 
patient from the “psych ward.” She also assisted with the 
recovery from a hurricane that hit Biloxi, Mississippi. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits a personal 
statement, copies of her DD Form 214, various service and medical 
records, and paperwork related to her disability discharge. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

In Apr 79, the applicant sustained a knee injury while at basic 
military training (BMT) that was determined to be “in the line of 
duty.” (The relevant facts pertaining to her injury and 
subsequent disability discharge are contained in the letters 
prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. 
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this 
Record of Proceedings.) 

 

On 6 Jun 83, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with 
severance pay with a disability rating of 20% 

 

On 21 Feb 85, she was discharged from the Air Force Reserve. 

 

On 8 Feb 11, AFPC/DPSIDR verified the applicant’s entitlement to 
the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR) and the Air 
Force Training Ribbon (AFTR). However, they were unable to 
verify any further service award entitlements. 

 

On 30 Mar 11, AFPC/DPSIT verified completion of the following 
formal training courses: 1) Basic Military Training, Apr 1979; 
2) Medical Service Specialist, Jun 1979; and 3) Prequalification 
Ground Training/C-130 Aircraft Orientation, Aug 1979. Her DD 
Form 214 will be administratively corrected to reflect completion 
of these courses. 

 

In a memorandum dated 21 Apr 11, AFPC/DPTSCS advised the 
applicant that certain corrections could not be made to her DD 
Form 214 dated 30 Nov 79. Specifically, that her DD Form 214 was 
issued for a specified period of active duty and that her rank at 
the end of that time period was correct. Also that any future 
promotions, schooling, or awards could not be added to a DD Form 
214 after the close out period, 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change 
her disability separation to a medical retirement with a 100% 
disability rating. DPSD opines that the preponderance of 
evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the 
disability process or in the rating rendered at the time of the 
boards she met. 

 

On 14 Mar 83, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) 
reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended discharge with 
severance pay with a combined disability rating of 20%. The IPEB 
awarded 10% for right patella subluxation and/or luxation, with 
secondary chrondromalacia patella, right knee, status post 
24 Oct 80, patella shave with current subjective pain, and 10% 
for psychological factors affecting physical condition, 


associated with recurrent low back pain without clinical evidence 
of pathology, with moderate social and industrial impairment. 
The applicant non-concurred and requested a formal hearing with 
counsel. On 12 Apr 83, the Formal PEB (FPEB) reviewed the case 
and recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability 
rating of 20%. The applicant appealed the FPEB decision to the 
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC). On 3 May 
1983, the SAFPC directed the applicant’s discharge with severance 
pay with a disability rating of 20%. 

 

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 May 
2011 for review and comment within 30 days. To date a response 
has not been received (Exhibit D). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s 
request to change her disability separation to a medical 
retirement. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant concedes that opinions may vary 
regarding application of rating criteria for a given medical 
condition, particularly those that are prone to subjective or 
divergent interpretation by different examiners. However, in the 
applicant’s case, attention should be focused on a search for 
objective evidence of “recurrent subluxation or lateral 
instability” documented at the time of adjudication when making 
the determination of whether the disability should have been 
“slight, moderate, or severe.” In the applicant’s case, a 
preponderance of objective assessments of the applicant’s left 
knee demonstrated essentially no subluxation or instability of 
the knee joint, although there was notable tenderness to 
palpation about the patella. There was also no documented 
evidence of pain, impaired range of motion, or weakness 
precipitated by repetitive nonweight-bearing passive range of 
motion to suggest application of a separate disability rating at 
the time of the applicant’s discharge. Thus based upon the 
evidence available at the time of initial assessment, the Medical 
Consultant found no objective basis upon which to retroactively 
assign the applicant a higher disability rating. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation, with attachment, 
is at Exhibit E. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Her injury was not taken care of as needed which led to an 
infection that almost caused the loss of her leg. 

 

She was not treated fairly compared to her male counter parts 
that had fewer disabilities and were rated higher. 

 

She was told she would be discharged because she was unable to 
perform her duties due to the injury she received at basic 
military training (BMT). 

 

It took over a year and six months to see that her injury was one 
of severity. 

 

Her DD Form 214 should say “honorable discharge” due to a 
“service connected disability,” and her rank should reflect 
“sergeant.” 

 

If possible she would like her last name changed to her maiden 
name, because it is confusing with all of her DVA communication 
reflecting a different name. 

 

The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. After carefully 
reviewing the evidence of record, and the applicant’s submission, 
to include her response to the Air Force evaluations, we are not 
persuaded that action to change her discharge to a medical 
retirement is warranted. 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 
office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant 
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The 
applicant requests that her disability rating of 20% be changed 
to 100% in order to qualify for a medical retirement. However, 
we find no evidence to suggest the disability rating she was 
assigned at the time of her separation was in error. The 


applicant’s rating was based on her impairment at the time of 
separation. We note the DVA is empowered to conduct periodic re-
evaluations for the purpose of adjusting (increase or decrease) 
the disability rating award, as the level of impairment may vary 
(improve or worsen) over the lifetime of the veteran. Regarding 
the applicant’s request to correct her date of discharge and rank 
at the time of discharge, the applicant has been advised that 
these corrections could not be made to her DD Form 214, dated 
30 Nov 79, as future promotions, schooling, or awards could not 
be added to a DD Form 214 after the close out period. We also 
note the appropriate offices of primary responsibility have 
addressed the applicant’s requests regarding entitlement to 
various awards and decorations and formal training courses. Her 
records will be administratively corrected to include the SAEMR 
and AFTR and that she completedBasic Military Training in April 
1979, Medical Service Specialist training in June 1979, and 
Prequalification Ground Training/C-130 Aircraft Orientation in 
August 1979. Regarding her request to change her last name, the 
applicant has no continuing affiliation with the Air Force as a 
Reserve member or retiree, therefore, changing her name in the 
service record after the fact is not appropriate. AFI 36-2608, 
Military Personnel Records System states that the name is not 
corrected for former members unless it was originally recorded in 
error. Therefore, aside from the administrative corrections 
noted above, we find no basis to recommend further relief in this 
case. 

 

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 Docket Number 
BC-2010-04276 in Executive Session on 21 Feb 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2010-04276 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 3 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 4 Nov 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 11 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Nov 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair