RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00182
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty, be corrected to reflect:
1. His retired rank of major/O-4.
2. A corrected effective date of pay
3. His combat service related disability rating.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was medically retired from the Air Force due to a combat
related injury. He was unable to pin-on major prior to his
retirement date of 28 December 2013. The Air Force recognized his
accomplishment and issued his retirement order reflecting his rank
as major/O-4 effective 29 December 2013.
He was promoted to major based on the merits of his records and
demonstrated performance. Due to his combat related back injury,
he was not allowed to continue serving. His DD Form 214 should
reflect his retired rank as ordered by the Air Force, an updated
effective date of pay should, and his combat service related
disability rating.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Air Force who was
permanently disability retired effective 29 December 2013, in the
grade of major. The retirement order reflects his disability was
received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict
caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of
duty during a period of war.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. The applicant was selected for
promotion to major during the CY12 Major Line Central Selection
board. Retirement Order ACD-03069, reflects the projected higher
grade of major as the retired grade. The DD form 214 is correct
as the applicant had not worn the rank of major prior to his date
of separation.
The retirement order notes the applicant had over 4 years active
enlisted service. The military personnel data system was updated
with the correct pay code of E to indicate that he had over
4 years enlisted service and his medical retirement was due to
combat related conditions.
The preponderance of evidence reflects no error or injustice
occurred during the disability process.
The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The DD Form 214 was published for
the period of active duty from 17 December 2004 through
28 December 2013. On 29 December 2013, the applicant was a
captain/O-3 and the DD Form 214 accurately reflects the grade of
captain.
Governing directive DoDI 1336.01, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty and AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents,
does not authorize the entry of a disability rating or reason for
the disability. However, the DD Form 214 accurately reflects the
type of separation as retirement and the narrative reason for
separation as disability, permanent (enhanced).
The DD Form 214 captures the period of time, grade and reason for
release from discharge from active duty ending on 28 December
2013. The source document for the retirement action itself is the
retirement order and it captures the retirement grade, disability
percent and conditions of the retirement disability, effective
29 December 2013.
The applicant has not provided evidence that the publication of
the DD Form 214 is in error or that it is not in compliance with
the governing directives.
The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation, with attachments, is listed at
Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 15 September 2014 for review and comment within
30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been
received by this office.
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. We took
notice of the applicants 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 the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
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-2014-00182 in Executive Session on 4 December 2014, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Record Excerpts.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 6 Feb 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 24 Mar 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Sep 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05615
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/DPFD recommends denial of the applicants request to change his 2Q RE code indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice during the disability process. The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) reviewed the applicants medical board for diagnoses of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01651
On 15 May 12, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) considered the applicants case as a dual-action case and determined the applicant should be discharged by execution of the approved discharge action for misconduct. DPFD states the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time of separation. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04206
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 25 April 2014, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant changing the applicants RE code or separation code as requested. Therefore, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04000
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04000 MEMBER:(DECEASED) COUNSEL: NONE APPLICANT: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. DPSOR states that the member was retired in the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) the grade held at the time of retirement, which complies with 10 U.S.C. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01635
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01635 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to Medical. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating the preponderance of the evidence indicates that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or the rating applied at the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02094
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02094 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her discharge be changed to a medical retirement. Although the applicant was evaluated and treated for episodic illnesses during her service, none were shown to have interfered with her military service to the extent or duration that warranted placement on...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03698
In view of the fact that her career was cut short due to malpractice, she should be credited with the 20 years of active service that she planned to perform and entitled to full concurrent receipt of her military disability retired pay and disability compensation from the DVA. The applicant contends she should be awarded a longevity retirement (as if she had served 20 years) since it was her intent to complete the required service for retirement from active duty. While she may have...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00953
The fact that a person has a medical condition does not mean that the condition is unfitting for continued military service. Based on definition, the facts and circumstances involved, the IPEB determined that the applicants medical conditions were not caused by an instrumentality of war or a direct result of armed conflict, but his prior back pain from 2009 was aggravated in the combat zone, but not combat related. His disabilities are classified as combat related, the unfitting...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03207
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. The complete Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00522
In a letter dated 8 January 2013, the applicant stated that he received an explanation of the IPEB findings from his assigned Air Force attorney and agreed with the findings of the IPEB and waived his right to a FPEB hearing. According to the DVA Rating Decision dated 16 January 2014, the evaluation of DVT, which was 10 percent disabling, was increased to 40 percent effective 29 October 2013. At the time of the IPEB findings, the DVA rated the applicants DVT at 0 percent.