RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03503
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His disability retirement be changed to reflect that he was
retired under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA).
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During his 19th year of service, he was given the option to
retire early for medical reasons and he accepted that option and
believes he should be entitled to Concurrent Retirement
Disability Pay (CRDP).
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 1 May 01, the applicant was retired with a compensable
disability rating of 30 percent and his name was placed on the
Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL). He was credited with
18 years, 11 months, and 13 days of active service for
retirement.
The applicant was rated at 100 percent employable by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and is in receipt of
disability compensation from the DVA. His military disability
retired pay is in a non-pay status due to the offset of his
compensation from the DVA in full and has only been receiving
this compensation since 1 Oct 04.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
DFAS recommends denial, stating, in part, that the applicants
record indicates that he completed 18 years, 11 months, 13 days
of total active service. No provisions of the law allow members
who retire by reason of physical disability with less than
20 years of total active service or 20 years of qualifying
service for members of the Air Reserve component to receive
CRDP; therefore, the applicant is not entitled to CRDP.
The complete DFAS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reiterates his original contention that he should
be eligible for retirement under TERA. He had to retire due to
medical hardship and is currently rated by the Department of
Veterans Affairs with a compensable rating of 100 percent.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, 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 timely filed.
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 opinion and recommendation
of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service office of primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. In addition, while the applicant seems to
have an understanding that TERA is an entitlement, it is not.
In this respect, we note the Secretary of Defense authorized the
service Secretaries the use of TERA authority as a force shaping
draw down tool; not as an entitlement. Further, the applicant
indicates that he took the disability option to retire early;
however, once a member has been found unfit or disqualified for
further service, they are processed for immediate separation.
Aside, along with his concurrence with the findings of the
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), the applicant
submitted a letter requesting expeditious processing of his
disability retirement. While the applicant requests his record
be corrected to reflect that he was retired under TERA, rather
than under Title 10 USC Section 1201, in order to garner
entitlement to CRDP, he has not provided substantial evidence
that his disability retirement was in error or unjust, only that
it would afford him eligibility to qualify for CRDP, which was
not in existence at the time of his separation. Therefore, 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.
________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-03503 in Executive Session on 21 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 31 Jul 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, DFAS, dated 2 Oct 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Oct 12.
Exhibit E. Letter, Veterans Service Organization,
dated 29 Oct 12, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04418 ADDENDUM
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSDC recommends denial of the applicants request for an increase in her deceased husbands CRSC rating to 100 percent, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. As for her request related to his cysts, we also do not find the evidence she has presented sufficient to conclude that his CRSC rating should be increased based on this condition. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 03594 3
On 4 Aug 10, the Board considered and denied the applicants request noting there was no evidence to show the applicants service connected medical condition met the criteria for compensation under CRSC. On 21 Mar 13, the Board considered and denied the request indicating the evidence was not sufficient to support crediting the applicant with the requisite 20 years of active service to qualify for CRDP or to override the earlier decision concerning his request for CRSC. By applications...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03623
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03623 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given credit for 20 years of active service toward retirement. He believes because of this injustice he should be credited with the 45 days of service in order to qualify for the Concurrent Retirement Disability Pay (CRDP). No provisions of...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00010
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFDC recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Regarding the applicants request for CRDP, a medically retired member with less than 20 years of service is not entitled to CRDP. In addition, members retired by reason of physical...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | bc-2007-01927
Had she known she could have received a TERA retirement based on years of service, she would have taken that instead of appealing the decision of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) regarding her retirement at 30 percent disability. Had she been returned to duty on 21 Aug 94, instead of permanently retired, she still could have requested to retire under TERA not later than 1 Sep 94 under the FY94 Force Reduction Program, a later TERA program, or retire at 20 years TAFMS, her mandatory...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01129
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01129 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: A statement be added to his record stating had he not become disabled, he would have had a very good chance of remaining in the Air Force for 20 years in order to qualify for Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03554
The Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) informed him their records indicate he did not have sufficient service to receive CRDP and advised him to submit a request to the Board to have his service record corrected. Under Title 10, USC, Chapter 61, Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability, Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a member's condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating. All military retirees...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02508
Control of Member After PEB Action states, The MPF will not retire, discharge, nor release a member from active duty before receiving the final decision in the form of retirement orders or instructions from HQ AFPC/DPPD directing disposition. According to information contained in the AFRC/SG evaluation, which is based on a review of the applicants medical records, The applicant began an AGR active duty tour on 19 May 97; in 2004, he underwent an MEB for a medical condition unrelated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004018C070205
The applicant provides copies of her 28 February 2006 letter to the President; a 6 March 2006 letter from the White House Director of Correspondence; a 29 August 1992 memorandum from the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army; a durable power of attorney, the FSM’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), his retirement orders; a 23 June 1993 letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); rating decisions from the VA showing the FSM is 100 percent disabled due to...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03839
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ 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...