Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 03552
Original file (BC 2012 03552.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-03552
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be changed to reflect her release from active duty as 
8 Nov 05, instead of 4 Oct 05.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her DD 214 should reflect that she was released from active duty 
on 8 Nov 05, instead of 4 Oct 05 as directed by the Secretary of 
the Air Force (SECAF).

In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her 
NGB Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and 
Record of Service; DD Form 214, a letter from ARPC/DPT, a letter 
from SAF/MRBR, and her rating decision from the Department of 
Veteran Affairs.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 Sep 04, the applicant enlisted in the Oklahoma Air National 
Guard (OKANG).

On 21 Jun 05, the applicant commenced her initial active duty 
for training active duty tour and proceeded to Basic Military 
Training (BMT).

On 25 Jun 05 while performing her initial Physical Readiness 
Training (PRT), the applicant sustained a muscle pull in her 
left hip.

On 30 Aug 05, a Line of Duty Determination (LOD) was initiated 
to determine if the applicant’s left strain of Sartorius was 
incurred in the Line of Duty (LOD).



According to information extracted from the Military Personnel 
Data System (MILPDS), on 27 Sep 05, an Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB) was conducted for the applicant’s 
injury.  The IPEB recommended a ten percent disability rating. 

On 29 Sep 05, the legal office concurred with a recommended 
finding of in the LOD.

On 4 Oct 05, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
issued a narrative reason for separation of “Termination of 
Initial Active Duty Training.”

On 5 Oct 05, the SECAF determined the applicant to be physically 
unfit for continued military service and directed she be 
honorably discharged from the OKANG with severance pay under the 
provisions of Title 10 USC § 1208.  

In accordance with AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation For 
Retention, Retirement, and Separation, paragraph 8.16.2.2, if a 
member is found unfit for duty after a Physical Evaluation Board 
(PEB) and does not require further hospitalization, the member 
is returned home to await final disposition action.

On 1 Nov 05, the applicant was honorably discharged from the 
Oklahoma ANG with a narrative reason for separation of “Medical 
Disqualification.”  She was credited with 3 months and 15 days 
of total active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant indicates that she was 
injured during her Initial Active Duty Training (IADT) and on 
27 Sep 05, an IPEB recommended her for discharge.  On 5 Oct 05, 
the SECAF recommended discharge, effective 1 Nov 05.  The 
applicant is requesting that her separation date for this period 
in block 12b on the DD 214 be changed to reflect 1 Nov 05 to 
allow her to be eligible for benefits based on her medical 
disqualification.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 was created for her continuous 
active duty from 21 Jun 05 to 4 Oct 05 and indicates she 
returned to her unit after termination of her IADT.

In accordance with AETCI 36-2215, Technical and Basic Military 
Training Administration, Table 12.16, item 3, “eliminated ANG 
students are returned to their home unit for disposition or 
discharge by the state.”  The applicant was properly transferred 
to the ANG and discharged effective 1 Nov 05.


On 26 Feb 13, the applicant was notified that her DD Form 
214 would not be corrected and her NGB Form 22 should be used as 
a source document for her medical separation.

A complete copy of the DPTS evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 24 Jul 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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.  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 the rationale expressed as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of 
injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief.

________________________________________________________________

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 submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this 
application.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03552 in Executive Session on 31 Jul 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                   , Panel Chair
	                   , Member
	                   , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03552 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPTS, dated 8 Jul 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jul 13.


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02587

    Original file (BC-2005-02587.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A review of her record indicates she completed the service requirements for Reserve retired pay, however, there is no indication she ever applied for retirement. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00458

    Original file (BC-2013-00458.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00458 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her record be corrected to reflect 52 retirement points for the year 6 Sep 11 - 5 Sep 12 and satisfactory service for the Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 17 Aug 12. DPTS states that the initial audit, prior service record capture, and resulting R/R...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03176

    Original file (BC-2011-03176.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The complete DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends rescinding the applicant’s administrative discharge under the provision of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members and supplanting it with an order transferring the applicant to the Reserve Retired Section effective the date of discharge (10 Aug...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00549

    Original file (BC-2005-00549.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    When the final disability severance pay estimate was initiated an error was found that showed applicant’s total active federal military service (TAFMS) was actually only 3 years, 9 months and 24 days. DPPD states after reviewing her record they have found the AFPC Disability Division made an error in the calculation of her estimated disability severance pay. She based her decision on the IPEB’s recommendation on the original estimated amount of disability severance pay she was given.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04510

    Original file (BC 2013 04510.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04510 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Retention/Retirement Year Ending (RYE) in 2002 be credited with additional retirement points to reflect a satisfactory year toward retirement. STATEMENT OF FACTS: During the RYE 11 Jun 02, the applicant was credited with five active duty points, 24 Inactive Duty Training (IDT) points, 15 membership points,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01272

    Original file (BC-2011-01272.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While serving on extended active duty (EAD), she was injured and involuntarily released from active duty prior to her medical condition being resolved. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1PS recommends denial, stating, in part, at this time there is no documentation provided showing the applicant was unable to perform ~military duties...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0003240

    Original file (0003240.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    If this had been a good year, he would have been eligible for the RRL when he was considered for separation [in 90] and his case would have been reviewed as a retirement-in-lieu-of- discharge case. The applicant’s military personnel records, to include documents pertaining to the administrative discharge board and the AF/DRB appeals, are provided at Exhibit B. JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN, JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-03240 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 02683 1

    Original file (BC 2012 02683 1.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should not have been discharged from active duty with unresolved medical issues and a Line of Duty (LOD) determination should have been initiated prior to his release from active duty. Although the applicant stated he received treatment for his medical conditions while he was on active orders, he has only provided subjective evidence following his release from active duty. If the applicant was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03550

    Original file (BC-2012-03550.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    24 Sep 10, the applicant was found to have a medical condition that did not meet medical standards, placed on a code “37” profile, and restricted from participating in her reserve military duties for pay or points. The applicant was physically disqualified for continued military service in the Air Force Reserves. The evidence of record indicates applicant was physically disqualified for continued military service due to injuries she sustained in motor vehicle accident that were not in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03593

    Original file (BC 2013 03593.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there was no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during the disability process. The applicant does not have the required 20 years of active service time to apply for CRDP. ...