DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00097 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
He  be  issued  a  letter  from  the  United  States  Air  Force  (USAF) 
stating that he completed twenty years of service based upon his 
19 years, 10 months and 5 days of active duty service.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  entered  the  USAF  on  18  August  1967,  was  commissioned  as  a 
Regular  Officer  and  attained  the  rank  of  Major,  O-4  before  he 
had  to  undergo  open  heart  surgery  on  4  August  1985,  for 
replacement  of  his  aortic  valve.    The  Wilford  Hall  Medical 
Center personnel informed him that he would have to return each 
year to be evaluated for suitability to remain on active duty.   
 
In 1986 and 1987, the medical board recommended his continuation 
on active duty.  In June 1987, the Patrick AFB personnel officer 
advised  him  that  he  was  to  be  retired  effective  23  June  1987.  
No  reason  was  given  as  to  why  the  medical  board  recommendation 
was  not  accepted.    He  was  not  given  any  options  and  had  to 
retire  immediately.    He  asked  if  he  could  utilize  his  accrued 
leave  to  complete  his  20  years  and  was  told  it  was  neither 
possible nor necessary.  Since he had over 19 years and 6 months 
of active duty service the personnel officer assured him that he 
would  be  credited  with  a  full  20  years  of  service.    Until 
February 2011 he assumed this to be the case.   
 
After he retired he went to work for the local sheriff’s office 
as  a  civilian  employee.    He  experienced  a  number  of  medical 
problems  directly  related  to  his  time  in  service.    He  began 
working  with  the  Veterans  Administration  (VA)  to  have  his 
percentage of disability upgraded.  As of 9 February 2011 the VA 
advised him that his disability rating had been determined to be 
70 percent based on a number of factors and his VA pension would 
no  longer  be  withheld  from  his  Air  Force  retirement  pay, 
however,  Defense  Finance  and  Accounting  Service  (DFAS)  did  not 
agree  and  he  was  advised  that  he  did  not  qualify  for  the 
Concurrent  Retirement  and  Disability  Pay  (CRDP)  option  because 
he has less than 20 years of creditable service.  This makes a 
very big difference in the funds he has available each month to 
live on. 

 
He also had one year of Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps 
(ROTC) in college, prior to being told he would not be able to 
fly  so  he  discontinued  the  program.    He  later  went  to  Officer 
Training  School  (OTS)  and  pilot  training  after  graduation  from 
college.  He has never been given any credit for this time.   
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  copies  of 
letters  from  DFAS,  his  congressman,  and  the  Department  of 
Veterans  Affairs  (DVA),  a  copy  of  his  February  2011  military 
retiree  account  statement  and  his  DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  a  former  commissioned  officer  of  the  Regular 
Air Force who served from 18 August 1967 through 23 June 1987.  
He was progressively promoted to the rank of Major (Maj), (O-4), 
with an Effective Date of Pay Grade of 11 August 1978.   
 
The  applicant  was  placed  on  the  Temporary  Disability  Retired 
List (TDRL) on 24 June 1987 with a compensable disability rating 
of  30  percent.    On  7  February  1989,  the  Informal  Physical 
Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)  reevaluated  the  applicant’s  case  and 
recommended  the  applicant  be  removed  from  the  temporary 
disability  retired  list  and  be  permanently  retired  with  a 
compensable disability rating of 30 percent.  The applicant did 
not  concur  with  the  recommended  findings,  waived  a  formal 
hearing and submitted a written rebuttal.  On 14 March 1989, the 
applicant was notified that after a thorough review of his case, 
officials  within  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force 
directed his permanent retirement with a compensable disability 
rating  of  30  percent.    He  was  permanently  retired  effective 
24 March 1989 and credited with 19 years, 10 months, and 5 days 
of active duty service.   
 
On  3  April  2012,  AFPC/DPSOY  advised  the  applicant  that  ROTC  is 
not  considered  creditable  service  on  a  DD  Form  214.    The 
applicant’s  prior  active  service  will  remain  2  months  and  28 
days  with  a  net  active  service  of  19  years,  10  months  and  5 
days. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
HQ AFPC/DPSD recommends denial.  DPSD states the applicant does 
not  have  the  required  twenty  years  of  active  service  time  to 

 

 
2 

apply  for  Concurrent  Receipt  of  Disability  Pay.    The  service 
dates on his temporary and permanent retirement special orders, 
ACD-01692,  dated  22  May  1987  and  ACD-817,  dated  19  March  1987, 
respectively,  are  correct.    The  preponderance  of  evidence 
reflects  that  no  error  or  injustice  occurred  during  the 
disability process or at the time of separation.   
 
The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSOR  recommends  denial.    DPSOR  states  the  applicant  must 
be able to show evidence that the Air Force committed an error 
or  injustice  during  his  physical  disability  retirement 
processing  that  prevented  him  from  obtaining  20  years  Total 
Active  Federal  Military  Service  (TAFMS).    In  order  to  be 
credited  with  20  years  TAFMS,  the  applicant  must  provide 
evidence to show that he had 20 years TAFMS to retire under 10 
USC  8914.    He  has  provided  no  evidence  to  show  that  he  had  20 
years TAFMS to qualify him for a non-disability retirement.   
 
The  complete  AFPC/DPSOR  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit D. 
 
DFAS/CL  recommends  denial.    CL  states  the  applicant’s  retired 
pay  was  computed  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  Title  10  USC, 
section 1401, formula 1.  Note 1 to formula 1 provides: “Before 
applying  percentage  factor,  credit  each  full  month  of  service 
that  is  in  addition  to  the  number  of  full  years  of  service 
creditable to the member as one-twelfth of a year and disregard 
any  remaining  fractional  part  of  a  month.”    Based  on  this 
formula, the applicant’s pay was computed using 19 years, and 10 
months.  The retired pay has been computed correctly.   
 
The complete DFAS/CL evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  applicant  indicates  in  his  response  that  he  accepts  the 
statement  that  his  DD  Form  214  shows  a  combined  active  service 
of 19 years, 10 months and 5 days.  What he is contesting is the 
fact that was it necessary for him to be medically retired with 
less  than  two  months  remaining  for  completion  of  a  full  twenty 
years  of  service.    He  expands  on  the  medical  issue  with  his 
heart  and  reiterates  his  previous  contention  that  he  relied  on 
the advice of the Patrick AFB personnel officer who told him his 
active duty service time of 19 years, 10 months and 5 days, far 
exceeded the 19 years and 6 months time needed to be considered 
to  have  completed  a  full  20  years.    His  post  service  work  was 
more  strenuous  and  in  many  cases,  significantly  more  dangerous 
than  his  last  military  position  and  he  believes  his  career  in 
the  Sheriff’s  office  more  than  demonstrates  that  he  was  more 
than  capable  of  completing  an  additional  two  months  in  the  Air 

 

 
3 

Force so that he might now be eligible for concurrent receipt of 
both Air Force retired pay and VA pension.   
 
The applicant’s complete response 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.  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.    The  Board  took  note  of  the  applicant’s 
contention  he  was  not  given  any  options  and  had  to  retire 
immediately with 19 years, 10 months and 5 days of active duty 
service  and  was  assured  that  he  would  be  credited  with  a  full 
20 years  of  service.    However,  the  evidence  available  to  us 
reflects that his disability discharge was properly executed and 
we  find  no  basis  to  grant  any  additional  service  credit.    In 
view  of  the  above,  and  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the 
contrary, we find no compelling 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 
BC-2012-00097  in  Executive  Session  on  11  September  2012,  under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 
 

 

 
4 

 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 January 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 22 February 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 7 March 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, DFAS/CL, dated 16 March 2012. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 2012. 
    Exhibit G.  Letter, APPLICANT, dated 13 May 2012. 
 
 
 
 
                                     
                                   Panel Chair 

 

 
5