Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00406
Original file (BC 2014 00406.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00406

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be 
corrected from “Disability Existed Prior to Service - Physical 
Evaluation Board (PEB)” to “Disability Temporary”.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation is in error as there is no 
evidence to support this statement.

He currently has a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) claim 
being processed. The main objective is to have his diagnosis 
reversed so he can continue to exercise his rights as a private 
pilot and to eliminate the stigma so that he can continue with 
his career opportunities.

In support of his request, the applicant has submitted 
substantial evidence that a disability did not exist prior to 
service and does not exist now.  The cover letters attached to 
each document contain personal statements and explanations.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 23 Aug 
11.

On 10 Jan 12, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) 
concluded the applicant was unfit because of a physical 
disability and recommended discharge.

On 11 Jan 12, the applicant agreed with the findings and 
recommended disposition of the informal PEB and waived his 
rights to a formal PEB hearing.

On 20 Jan 12, the Special Assistant, Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Council directed the applicant be separated from 
active service for physical disability due to a condition that 
existed prior to service.  

On 25 Jan 12, the applicant was furnished an Honorable 
discharge, and was credited with 5 months, and 3 days of active 
service.   

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


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  On 11 Jan 12 the applicant concurred 
with the PEB findings. It should be noted that he did not 
exercise his two appeal rights to have his case heard by the 
Formal Board or the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel 
Council.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD 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 15 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  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 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 
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.



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-2014-00406 in Executive Session on 13 Jan 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 1 May 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Sep 14.

						






Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02251

    Original file (BC 2014 02251.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was advised by members of the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) would be recorded on her DD Form 214. The DD Form 214 reflects the active duty grade the member held at time of retirement and the retirement order also reflects this rank as “highest grade held on active duty,” which was senior airman (E-4). The DD Form 214 is correct in this case, as it reflects the highest grade held while on active duty and the retirement order is also correct, in that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02223

    Original file (BC 2014 02223.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02223 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2Q (Personnel medically retired or discharged) be changed to allow reentry in the military. On 20 Mar 09, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) reviewed the case file with medical records and determined the ulcerative colitis was unfitting with a disability rating of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03327

    Original file (BC 2014 03327.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02719

    Original file (BC 2013 02719.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) narrative states he began experiencing back pain after completing weight training for his Air Force Specialty. On 12 Apr 95, the applicant was diagnosed with lower back pain that existed prior to service (EPTS) and spondylolysis and a recommendation for back exercises, continuation of medication and entry-level separation with follow-up with a civilian orthopedic physician. On 18 Apr 95, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00166

    Original file (BC 2014 00166.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    At that time, the IPEB determined that his disability was not combat related, a direct result of armed conflict or an instrumentality of war. Instrumentality of War: A vehicle, vessel, or device designed primarily for military service and intended for use in such service at the time of the occurrence of the injury. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03014

    Original file (BC 2014 03014.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Further, it must be noted the United States Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member’s condition at the time of the evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. The result of the inquiry stated that he did not file VA Form 21-826, Notice to a Retired Veteran of his Right of Election to Receive Disability Compensation, within one year after his discharge. He feels he should receive all medical retirement compensation that was due from 27...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02908

    Original file (BC 2014 02908.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating the preponderance of evidence reflects there was no error or an injustice in the disability process. Further, it must be noted the USAF disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member’s condition at the time of evaluation; in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00804

    Original file (BC 2014 00804.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 21 Nov 06 and served on active duty until 28 Dec 12, when he was discharged for Disability that Existed Prior to Service (EPTS). According to the documentation submitted by the applicant, on 28 Mar 13, the DVA issued him the following service connected disability ratings: a. Seizure disorder – 40 percent. Further, it must be noted the USAF disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member’s condition at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03839

    Original file (BC-2012-03839.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00289

    Original file (BC 2014 00289.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    According to an AF Form 618, Medical Board Report, dated 15 Sep 08, he was referred for evaluation by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for diagnosis and findings of asthma. Regarding his requests to be paid $500,000 and he receive a retirement check, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant correcting his record in the manner requested. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate...