Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04139
Original file (BC-2012-04139.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04139 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Reentry (RE) code of 2Q (personnel medically retired or 
discharged) be changed to a 1-Series code that will allow him to 
reenlist in the military. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He should have been placed on the Temporary Disability Retired 
List (TDRL) and given a chance to get better. He was 
misdiagnosed and the medications he was prescribed made him 
sick. Because of medical profiles, orthotics, and side-effects 
from the medication, he gained over 70 pounds. He is in better 
shape now than when he was on active duty and would like an 
opportunity to pass the medical standards and serve again. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 21 Nov 06. 

 

On 8 Jun 11, a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) found the 
applicant unfit for duty due to his low back pain due to 
degenerative disc disease and bilateral plantar fasciitis. The 
Board recommended discharge with severance pay and a combined 
compensable disability rating of 20 percent. On 9 Jun 11, the 
applicant agreed with the findings and recommendations of the 
FPEB. 

 

On 5 Jul 11, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the 
applicant be separated from active service for physical 
disability. 

 


On 30 Nov 11, the applicant was honorably discharged for 
physical disability with a combined compensable disability 
rating of 20 percent and entitlement to severance pay. He was 
credited with five years and ten days of total active service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change 
his RE code, indicating there is no evidence of an error or 
injustice. While the applicant contends that he has lost over 
73 pounds and is in better shape than when he was on active 
duty, the preponderance of the evidence reflects there was no 
error or injustice that occurred during the disability process. 
The RE code of 2Q is the correct code for a member such as the 
applicant who was approved for a medical retirement or 
separation. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 16 Oct 12 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 timely filed. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice regarding the 
applicant’s reentry (RE) code. 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. While the applicant 
also contends his name should have been placed on the Temporary 
Disability Retired List (TDRL), he has presented no evidence 
whatsoever to indicate that he should have been assigned a 


combined compensable disability rating of at least 30 percent to 
qualify for a disability retirement in lieu of being discharged 
with entitlement to severance pay. 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-2012-04139 in Executive Session on 23 Apr 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 3 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Oct 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03444

    Original file (BC-2011-03444.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 Mar 10, the applicant non-concurred with the findings and recommendations of the IPEB contending that his condition did not make him unfit for duty, and requested a formal hearing of the case. On 6 May 10, the Air Force Personnel Council, on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, directed the applicant be separated from active service with severance pay for physical disability. The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects his RE code at the time of separation.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04254

    Original file (BC-2010-04254.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 Sep 07, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) found the applicant unfit for continued military service for inflammatory bowel disease, most likely Crohn’s disease, and referred him to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04902

    Original file (BC-2010-04902.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 Sep 07, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) found the applicant unfit for continued military service for inflammatory bowel disease, most likely Crohn’s disease, and referred him to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02228

    Original file (BC-2012-02228.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The IPEB noted that she had declined further “ablation surgery.” On 9 March 2006, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ 5 APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 15 Feb 13, by letter, the applicant amended her request and now ask to be medically retired instead of being returned to duty. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04632

    Original file (BC-2011-04632.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04632 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His disability rating from the Air Force of 10 percent be increased to 30 percent and he receive a permanent retirement. Had the DVA initially evaluated him at 30 percent or if the FPEB waited until the DVA processed his appeal, the increased...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00428

    Original file (BC-2010-00428.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's records reflect in April 2002, he self-referred to Life Skills due to an anxiety while flying. The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a hearing by the FPEB and change in his disability rating. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant's evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01045

    Original file (BC-2011-01045.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is located at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. However, the PEB rates only the unfitting disability as it exists at the time of the board. The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01911

    Original file (BC-2011-01911.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by stating, “her record does not clearly reflect that she has significant and progressively worsening degenerative disc disease at the time of the original boards.” The records states that she had progressively worsening muscle spasms and neck pain; there is clearly a difference between the two statements. She asks, “Does not intermittent mean ‘occurring in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04590

    Original file (BC-2010-04590.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04590 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 20 percent disability rating he received for his diabetes be increased to 40 percent and he be medically retired with a 40 percent disability rating. The USAF disability boards must rate disabilities based on the service member’s condition at the time...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02719

    Original file (BC-2011-02719.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02719 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His permanent compensable disability rating of 30 percent should be increased to 50 percent and made retroactive to his retirement date. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on the available...