Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03985
Original file (BC-2012-03985.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03985 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The Standard Form (SF) 88, Report of Medical Examination, and 
SF 93, Report of Medical History, both dated 2 Oct 73, be 
removed from his records. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The SF 88 and SF 93 in his official records were falsified and 
placed in his records while he was still in Thailand. He was 
not allowed to complete a report of medical history or provided 
a separation exam. His name is misspelled on the SF 93 and he 
did not sign the form. The false documents were placed in his 
records six months prior to his actual separation. He has been 
denied compensation by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
due to the false, forged, and libelous documents. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 4 May 70, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force as a vehicle operator. 

 

On 5 Aug 70, the applicant reported and was treated for back 
pain. 

 

On 5 Oct 70, the applicant was prohibited from doing heavy 
lifting due to recurrent back pain. 

 

On 14 Oct 70, the applicant was medically disqualified as a 
Special Purpose Vehicle Repairman due to recurring back strain 
and approved for cross training. 

 

The applicant’s performance reports reflect he was stationed at 
U-Tapo Airfield, Thailand during the period 7 Sep 72 through 
13 Feb 74. 


On 6 Jan 73, the applicant was prohibited from prolonged 
standing and driving until 11 Jan 73. 

 

The applicant was restricted from driving from 31 Jan 73 through 
1 Apr 73. 

 

The contested SF 88 and SF 93, both dated 2 Oct 73, reflect the 
applicant had occasional back pain and a history of back pain, 
respectively. 

 

On 5 Nov 73, the applicant was placed on administrative hold as 
a possible witness for a civilian court case. 

 

On 6 Apr 74, the applicant was released from active duty at the 
completion of his required active service with said service 
characterized as honorable. 

 

According to documentation provided by the applicant, the DVA 
has repeatedly denied his requests for disability compensation 
related to his back pain due to no evidence of a service 
connection for back pain. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFMOA/SGH recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. The applicant’s Report of Medical 
History and Report of Medical Examination were completed on 
2 Oct 73, with the medical history being signed by the 
applicant. His date eligible for return from overseas (DEROS) 
was 11 Nov 73; however, he was placed on administrative hold on 
5 Nov 73 as a possible witness to a civil court case. In 
addition, there is no available documentation showing any other 
examination occurred prior to his separation. 

 

A complete copy of the AFMOS/SGH evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He reiterates he was not given a separation examination or the 
opportunity to complete a report of medical history. These 
false forms were placed in his records prior to his DEROS and 
release from active duty. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is attached 
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 an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal response, 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. The applicant’s contentions are duly 
noted; however, other than his own assertions, he has provided 
no evidence that would lead us to believe the contested 
documents were falsified as he contends or executed in violation 
of established procedure. While it appears that the forms in 
question were executed several months prior to his ultimate date 
of separation, the applicant has produced no evidence that would 
convince us, forty years after the events in question, that he 
was denied rights to which he was entitled. 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 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-2012-03985 in Executive Session on 14 May 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03985 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFMOA/SGH, dated 28 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Mar 13. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Apr 13, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00993

    Original file (BC 2014 00993.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because he was suffering from major depression. There is no reference of depression in the applicant’s medical records during his Air Force military service from 1971-1974. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 14.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01939 ADDENDUM

    Original file (BC-2010-01939 ADDENDUM.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Also chart on mandibular arch missing teeth 17, 31, and 32. c. SF Form 93, Item 25, add note all maxillary teeth missing 1-16, replaced by complete denture. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 20 March 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit K). We note that based on the medical and dental documentation provided by the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01279

    Original file (BC 2014 01279.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01279 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His SF 88, Report of Medical Examination, dated 16 Aug 68, be removed from his records. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFMOA/SGH recommends removal of page two of the applicant’s SF 88, dated 16 Aug 68. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01939

    Original file (BC-2010-01939.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Defective distant vision acuity diagnosis 13 June 1967. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 1. His Standard Form 93, Report of Medical History, dated 24 November 1987, be amended in Item 25, Physician’s summary and elaboration of all pertinent data to reflect the following notes: Defective distant vision acuity diagnosis...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05220

    Original file (BC 2013 05220.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02742

    Original file (BC-2003-02742.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-02742 INDEX CODE 108.01 108.10 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given a medical discharge/retirement for service-connected pain in his back, shoulder, and neck, and numbness in his right hand. The DVA concluded the evidence did not show his right ear perforation continued to cause...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01402

    Original file (BC-2004-01402.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, applicant provided documentation associated with his CRSC application. His records are otherwise silent for any specific back injury. _________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-04477

    Original file (BC-2012-04477.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Indeed, the DVA rating letter dated 2 Aug 12 found no basis for military service connection for lumbar spine strain related to chronic back pain. However, even if the disorder was present during the period of service and there was evidence of an upper thoracic disc protrusion (T10-T11), either condition would not necessarily be considered disqualifying or unfitting for continued military service and there was no evidence that either condition was the cause of service termination. In...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01213

    Original file (BC-2002-01213.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01607

    Original file (BC 2013 01607.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01607 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The handwritten note stating that he was injured in 1958 be removed from his medical records. The DVA opined the applicant’s condition existed prior to service. We took notice of the available evidence of record and the applicant's complete...