Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-05388
Original file (BC-2011-05388.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05388
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be given service credit to enable her to receive Department 
of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She left active duty four days short of two years required for 
DVA benefits.  She was originally scheduled to be discharged on 
1 Oct 1984; however, due to pregnancy complications she had to 
choose an earlier date.  Had she known she would have been 
eligible for DVA benefits after two years of service, she would 
have held out for four more days to qualify.  She was injured on 
the job three years ago and spent the last three years trying to 
save her leg.  She has no health insurance and this is her last 
opportunity to pay out of pocket expenses for her medication.

The applicant provides no documents in support of her request.

Her complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 Sep 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 9 May 1984, she applied for a separation due to her 
pregnancy.

On 14 Sep 1984, she was honorably discharged under the 
provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  
Her narrative reason for separation was “Pregnancy.”  She served 
1 year, 11 months and 25 days of total active service.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial.  DPSIPV states that the applicant 
requested early separation due to pregnancy.  On 9 May 1984, she 
submitted her application for early separation due to pregnancy 
with a requested separation date of 15 Sep 1984.  The actual 
separation occurred on 14 Sep 1984.  Her request for additional 
service credit solely to obtain DVA benefits should be denied.  

The complete DPSIPV evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 Jan 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of 
this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit 
C).

________________________________________________________________

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 opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
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 this application 
in Executive Session on 6 Aug 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

     , Panel Chair
     , Member
     , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-05388:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 2012.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 7 Jan 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 2013.




                                    
                                   Panel Chair

2


2






Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05575

    Original file (BC 2013 05575.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her husband’s records be corrected to show that he was on active duty in the Army from 21 Apr 52 to 29 Jan 55. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial of the applicant’s request to correct the decedent’s service dates. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03387

    Original file (BC 2013 03387.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03387 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to show her Date of Enlistment (DOE) as 26 Jun 1958. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01124

    Original file (BC-2003-01124.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-01124 INDEX CODE 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records reflect that she was discharged for the convenience of the government, not due to pregnancy, so she may be eligible for educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). (See Exhibit F.) On 13 Aug 02, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00110

    Original file (BC-2013-00110.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The overseas long tour ribbon was omitted based on incorrect Foreign Service time on her DD Form 214. The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIPV states that the applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects an incorrect Date Entered Active Duty (Item 12a) and will be corrected to read 12 Aug 77. However, both the DD Form 214 and DD Form 215, Correction to the DD Form 214, reflects the applicant’s full service time.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04897

    Original file (BC-2011-04897.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04897 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed from “Pregnancy or Childbirth” to “Medical Retirement.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was discharged because of her pregnancy; however her...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01762

    Original file (BC 2013 01762.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 Nov 2013, a similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessments Appeals Board (FAAB) due to “Insufficient evidence to support contention.” ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of removal of the 4 Oct 11 FA, due to insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s contention. Her records were administratively corrected to show that she was exempt from participating in the 7 Feb 12 FA, due to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01360

    Original file (BC 2013 01360.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 Nov 2013, a similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessments Appeals Board (FAAB) due to “Insufficient evidence to support contention.” ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of removal of the 4 Oct 11 FA, due to insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s contention. Her records were administratively corrected to show that she was exempt from participating in the 7 Feb 12 FA, due to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00478

    Original file (BC-2013-00478.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her DD Form 214 reflects her entitlement to the National Defense Service Medal, Air Force Training Ribbon, and the AFOR-Long Tour (AFOR-LT). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her rank and pay grade reflected on her DD Form 214. The ribbon was authorized to be awarded to Air Force and Air Force Reserve members credited with completion of an overseas tour on or after 1 Sep 80.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04523

    Original file (BC 2013 04523.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04523 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect that he was released from active duty on 22 Oct 64, instead of 22 May 64. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02194

    Original file (BC-2005-02194.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of her separation she had been disqualified from Air Traffic Control duties and had been continued on active duty awaiting waivers and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing. With regard to the presence of medical conditions that were potentially disqualifying for controller duties, the Medical Consultant states the fact that she decided to voluntarily separate under pregnancy provisions rather than remain on active duty and complete the planned evaluations and...