RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-03839
		COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His DD Form 214, Certificate or Release from Active Duty be 
changed to reflect he completed 20 years of active duty service.  

2.  He be paid Concurrent Receipt and Disability Pay (CRDP) per 
Title 10, United States Code (USC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied CRDP even though he is being paid retirement 
benefits based on 20 years of service.  

On 21 May 90, he was discharged due to a service-connected 
mental health condition.  He was informed to accept the early 
discharge; that it would be honorable and he would receive the 
same benefits, as if he completed 20 years of active duty 
service.  He accepted the discharge and started receiving 
retirement payments based on 20 years of active service.

In 03, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) awarded him a 
compensable disability rating of 100 percent.   

In 91 and 92, he was recalled to active duty for medical 
evaluations; however, these periods of active service are not 
reflected on his DD Form 214. 

He was never informed that he would lose his entitlement to CRDP 
because he retired prior to reaching 20 years of active duty 
service.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 8 Jan 69, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  

On 21 Mar 90, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened to 
consider the applicant for continued active duty.  The board 
recommended the applicant be referred to a Physical Evaluation 
Board (PEB) for Alcohol Dependence; Mental Disorder (not 
otherwise specified); History of Delirium (most likely substance 
induced); No diagnosis but with dependent and anti-social 
personality traits, and Mild Anemia of undetermined etiology, 
asymptomatic.  

On 23 Mar 90, the applicant concurred with the findings and 
recommendations of the MEB.

On 10 Apr 90, the IPEB reviewed the case and found the applicant 
unfit and recommended a temporary retirement with a disability 
rating of 30 percent.  The Informal PEB (IPEB) noted the 
applicant had three Axis I psychiatric diagnoses, with a 
definite impairment for social and industrial adaptability.  On 
17 Apr 90, the applicant concurred with the findings and 
recommended disposition of the IPEB.

On 26 Apr 90, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) directed the applicant’s name be placed on the Temporary 
Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a compensable disability 
rating of 30 percent.  On 26 May 90, he was placed on the TDRL 
with a compensable disability rating of 30 percent.  

On 18 Oct 91, the applicant underwent a PEB TDRL reevaluation.  
The PEB found him unfit and recommended he be permanently 
retired with a compensable disability rating of 30 percent.  The 
PEB noted he remained unfit for duty due to chronicity of his 
mental illness and had been consistently rated at 30 percent.  
On 8 Nov 91, the applicant concurred with the recommended 
findings.   

On 19 Nov 91, the SAFPC directed the applicant’s name be removed 
from the TDRL.

On 29 Nov 91, the applicant was permanently retired with a 
disability rating of 30 percent.  He was credited with 19 years, 
9 months and 21 days of active duty service. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial.  DPSD states that eligibility for 
CRDP requires at least 20 years of creditable service IAW 
10 U.S.C. §1414(b) (1).  On 19 Nov 91, special order ACD-399 was 
issued reflecting the applicant had 19 years, 9 months and 
21 days of active service; therefore, he is ineligible to apply 
for CRDP.  

DPFD states that time spent on the TDRL is “retired time” and 
does not count towards active service.  While on the TDRL, 
retired Air Force members are required to undergo periodic 
physical evaluations and are provided travel orders to these 
appointments.  However, this time is not considered active 
service as the member is in a retired status.  

The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterated his original contention that he was 
recalled back on active duty twice after he retired and was not 
given credit for this time.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 
careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging 
the merits of this case, however, other than the applicant's own 
uncorroborated assertions, persuasive evidence has not been 
provided which would lead us to believe the applicant was 
miscounseled.  While the applicant argues that he was not given 
credit for the time he was on the TDRL, we do not find his 
assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale 
provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
(OPR).  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his 
burden of proof of the existence of either an error or 
injustice.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application.

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 issue(s) 
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 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number Bc-2012-03839 in Executive Session on 9 May 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Aug 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 26 Sep 12.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Oct 12.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   

                                   Panel Chair