RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02508 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His records be corrected to change his Date of Separation 
(DOS) from Extended Active Duty (EAD) to match his retirement 
date of 2 Nov 06. 

 

2. He receive back pay with all entitlements beginning with his 
current DOS through 2 Nov 06, minus any VA payments received 
during this time. 

 

3. He receive Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP). 

 

4. He be relieved of the debt he owes for shipping household 
goods (HHG) in excess of his authorized weight limit. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

On 31 Jul 05, he was inappropriately released from active duty 
while his medical case was undergoing the Medical Evaluation 
Board (MEB)/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) process. He should 
have remained on active duty until his PEB-directed retirement 
date of 2 Nov 06. During the intervening period between 1 Aug 
05 and 1 Nov 06, he was unjustly denied pay and allowances due 
to him. 

 

He qualifies for CRDP because he has over 20 years of total 
service, and Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 61 § 1201 
does not say anything about whether or not the 20 years needs to 
be on Active Duty or Reserve status. 

 

As for his debt related to his HHG shipment, it is ridiculous 
and unfair that the government has up to 6-8 years to bill him 
for the excess weight of his household goods. He is a disabled 
Veteran rated at 100% due to his un-employability. This 
additional bill, no matter how small the payment may be, will be 
too much of a hardship and may even push them into bankruptcy 
and cause them to lose their house. 

 


In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement and copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty, retirement orders, AF Form 618, Medical Board Report, e-mails related to his case, and two 
letters he sent to elected officials concerning his case. 

 

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

 

_________________ ______________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

During the period in question, the applicant served an Active 
Guard Reserve (AGR) tour as an Air Force Reserve Recruiter. 

 

AFI 36-3212, dated 2 Feb 06, Chapter 4, paragraph 4.4. Control 
of Member During PEB Processing states, “Once in disability 
channels, the following restrictions apply to ensure the member 
is available for necessary disability processing actions: 4.4.3. 
The MPF will not reassign the member, except for emergency 
reasons, until receiving notification of the final 
determination;” and, paragraph 4.5. Control of Member After PEB 
Action states, “The MPF will not retire, discharge, nor release 
a member from active duty before receiving the final decision in 
the form of retirement orders or instructions from HQ AFPC/DPPD 
directing disposition.” 

 

According to information contained in the AFRC/SG evaluation, 
which is based on a review of the applicant’s medical records, 

 

The applicant began an AGR active duty tour on 19 May 97; in 
2004, he underwent an MEB for a medical condition unrelated to 
the case before the Board; on Jan 05, he underwent back surgery. 

 

On 30 Jul 05, the applicant was released from his AGR tour for 
“Miscellaneous/General Reasons,” with Honorable character of 
service. 

 

On 8 Sep 05, his servicing reserve medical unit identified his 
disqualifying condition requiring an MEB and, on 17 May 06, 
AFRC/SGP directed a second MEB. 

 

According to the documentation submitted by the applicant, the 
AF Form 618, Medical Board Report, dated 3 Aug 06, included the 
following statement, “Member should have never been released 
from AD status.” 

 

On 2 Nov 06, a PEB determined the applicant to be unfit for 
continued military service, and directed his medical retirement 
with 40% disability effective 2 Nov 06 after over 21 years of 
total reserve service, which included 13 years, 8 months, and 
23 days of active duty service. 

 


CRDP allows military retirees to receive both military retired 
pay and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA). Recipients of retired pay with a DVA disability 
rating of 50 percent or greater may be eligible for CRDP if they 
meet any of the following conditions: 

 

 - 20 Years of active duty 

 - 20 Years in the reserves and 60 years of age or older 

 - Retired under temporary early retirement authority (TERA) 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
(DFAS), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFRC/SG acknowledges that the 30 Jul 05 release of the 
applicant from active duty was prior to completion of his 
medical case evaluation. No request for Medical Hold was 
received by AFRC/SGP prior to his reverting to traditional 
reserve status. It is unclear why member was released from his 
AGR tour before medical hold was requested or considered IAW AFI 
41-210,Patient Administration Function. 

 

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

 

DFAS advises that eligibility for CRDP requires a member who is 
retired under Chapter 61 to have at least 20 years of active 
duty service as computed under 10 U.S.C 1405 or 10 U.S.C. 12732. 

 

The complete DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

PPA HQ/ECAF recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
relief from his indebtedness for shipping excess household 
goods, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice. 
The net weight of his shipment was 19,740 pounds, while his 
authorized weight allowance was only 12,500 pounds. Although 
the government made arrangements for the shipment of the 
applicant’s household goods (HHG), the applicant was responsible 
for insuring the weight of the HHG did not exceed his authorized 
allowance. The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) provides 
that the Government may pay the total transportation cost and 
other charges applicable to any excess weight that exceeds a 
member’s HHG weight allowance and collect reimbursement from the 
member. 

 

The complete PPA HQ/ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 9 Dec 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office. 
(Exhibit F). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 with respect 
to the applicant’s request pertaining to his household goods 
(HHG) expenses. 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 PPA HQ/ECAF and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice. As for his 
request related to CRDP, insufficient relevant evidence has been 
presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. 
We note the applicant is not eligible for CRDP as he does not 
meet the service requirements. In this respect, we note that 
eligibility for CRDP is predicated on attaining 20 years of 
active service, or 20 years of reserve service and be at least 
60 years old. While it appears as though the applicant has more 
than 20 years of reserve service, he has not yet attained age 60 
and is therefore not eligible for CRDP, regardless of his 
combined compensable disability rating issued by the DVA. 

 

Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been 
presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice 
with respect to his request for extension of his AGR tour until 
his disability retirement. The applicant contends he was 
inappropriately released from active duty on 31 Jul 05 while his 
medical case was undergoing the Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB)/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) process. After a thorough 
review of the evidence or record and the applicant’s complete 
submission, we believe a preponderance of the evidence supports 
corrective action. In this respect, we note that MEB/PEB 
procedures require members undergoing evaluation to remain on 
active duty. We also give weight to the note on the AF Form 618 
Medical Board Report, dated 3 Aug 06, that states “Member should 
have never been released from AD status.” Therefore, we 
conclude that he should have remained on active duty until the 
date of his disability retirement on 2 Nov 06 and recommend his 
records be corrected to the extent indicated below. 


 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show he was not 
released from Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) duty on 30 Jul 05, but 
continued to serve until he was relieved from AGR status on 
1 November 2006 and retired for physical disability, effective 
2 November 2006. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02508 in Executive Session on 1 March 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/SG, dated 19 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, DFAS, dated 11 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, PPA HQ/ECAF, dated 14 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair