Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02126
Original file (BC 2014 02126.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02126

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation and reentry (RE) and 
separation program designator (SPD) codes be changed on his DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His DD Form 214 should be amended to reflect his being removed 
from the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) and being found 
fit for duty.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 Jun 05, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular 
Air Force.

On 27 Aug 10, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the 
applicant be placed on the TDRL for Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) 
requiring continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with a 50 
percent disability rating.

On 23 Jan 11, the applicant was released from active duty with a 
narrative reason for separation of Disability, Temporary, SPD code 
of SFK (Disability, Temporary) and RE code 2Q (Personnel medically 
retired or discharged) and placed on the TDRL, effective 24 Jan 
11.

On 30 Apr 12, the applicant underwent a periodic TDRL 
reevaluation.  On 22 Jun 12, the Informal Physical Evaluation 
Board (IPEB) reviewed the reevaluation and recommended removal 
from the TDRL, and discharge with entitlement to severance pay 
with a disability rating of zero percent.  

On 6 Jul 12, the applicant disagreed with the IPEB and requested a 
hearing before the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).

On 21 Aug 12, the FPEB reviewed the applicant’s case and found the 
applicant’s medical condition to be stable and recommended the 
applicant be removed from the TDRL.  The applicant disagreed with 
the findings and appealed to the Secretary Air Force Personnel 
Council (SAFPC).

On 13 Nov 12, SAFPC directed the applicant be removed from the 
TDRL.

On 31 Dec 12, AFPC/DPFDD contacted the applicant regarding his 
intentions for reenlisting on active duty.  On 13 Feb 13, the 
applicant indicated he was not going to reenlist.

On 13 Mar 13, the applicant was removed from the TDRL and 
transferred to the Air Force Reserve, Obligated Reserve Section, 
effective 14 Mar 13.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice noting the applicant underwent his first 
periodic reexamination and was found fit and was removed from 
TDRL.  On 13 Mar 13, the applicant was removed from the TDRL with 
the reentry code of 3K which allows the service member to be 
eligible to enlist in any branch of the service.

The RE code 2Q is the correct code for a service member who was 
approved for medical retirement or separation and SEK is the 
correct separation code for being placed on the TDRL.  A new DD 
Form 214 is not issued when a service member is removed from the 
TDRL, because the time spent on TDRL is not active duty time.  The 
new order issued indicates the final status and becomes part of 
the service member’s permanent military personnel file, and can be 
attached to the DD 214 to reflect the service member’s final 
disposition was removal from the TDRL and found fit with an RE 
code of 3K.

In accordance with Section 1210, Chapter 61, Title 10 U.S.C., a 
service member who has been placed on the TDRL to be reexamined at 
least once every 18 months to determine whether there has been a 
change in the service member’s condition for which he or she was 
retired.  If the medical condition has improved or stabilized, the 
service member could receive permanent disability retirement, 
discharge with severance pay; or, if the member is found fit, 
removal from the TDRL and returned to duty if they so desire.  If 
the service member’s condition has not stabilized, it could result 
in continuation on the TDRL for further observation and treatment.  
A service member's placement on the TDRL terminates upon the 
expiration of five years after the date originally placed on that 
list, unless the condition has stabilized in which case the case 
will be finalized sooner.

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 27 Oct 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.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.


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-2014-02126 in Executive Session on 19 May 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02126 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 14,  w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 25 Jul 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02678

    Original file (BC 2013 02678.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02678 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following items on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 29 Apr 11 placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) be changed so that he can reenter the Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01398

    Original file (BC 2013 01398.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The IPEB noted she was pending surgery and granted her a 30 percent disability rating. However, at the time of the TDRL reevaluation, the applicant had not had the surgery and her physicians at the time were no longer recommending surgery. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation, with attachments, is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05615

    Original file (BC 2013 05615.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 of the applicant’s 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 applicant’s medical board for diagnoses of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02289

    Original file (BC-2004-02289.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since being placed on, and then removed from the TDRL, the documented inconsistencies within the Air Force and Air Force Reserve are working against him to continue to serve his country. He had 17 years, 3 months, and 22 days of military service for basic pay _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommended denial and stated the prepondence of evidence reflects that no injustice occurred during his processing to separate under...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02840

    Original file (BC 2014 02840.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He suffered from a serious brain tumor condition that was corrected by surgery and removal of the tumor was more than three years ago. The board finds the member unfit for duty at this time and he should be placed on the TDRL and re-evaluated in 18 months. The applicant contends that he is fit for duty and there is no reason to question the Commandant of Cadets who indicated the applicant was fulfilling all duties required of cadets at the time he was placed on TDRL.

  • 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 02749

    Original file (BC 2013 02749.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends amending the applicant’s record to reflect he was removed from the TDRL and permanently retired with a 50 percent disability rating due to PTSD, under VASRD Code 9411, effective 12 March 2012. While the Medical Consultant recommends granting the applicant the 50 percent rating, he does not believe this should be based upon the documentation from the DVA; as this evidence was the same old evidence utilized...

  • 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 | CY2013 | BC-2013-00990

    Original file (BC-2013-00990.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The evidence supports that both Delusional Disorder and PTSD were present, unfitting and compensable at the time the applicant was placed on the TDRL. The Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the member's condition at the time of evaluation. The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Regarding the diagnosis of PTSD, counsel states that no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00395

    Original file (BC 2014 00395.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00395 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement order be corrected to reflect his disabilities were received in the line of duty as the direct result of armed conflict, caused by an instrumentality of war, incurred in the line of duty during a period of war, or were the direct result of a combat related injury. While we note the applicant’s...