RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03554

					COUNSEL:  NONE

					HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge with a 50 percent disability rating be increased 
to 80 percent.

He be entitled to Concurrent Retired Disability Pay (CRDP). 
(Administratively Corrected)


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is eligible for CRDP; however, he has not yet received 
payment.  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.  In addition, his disability 
rating with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is 
80 percent.  Therefore, his medical retirement should reflect 
80 percent instead of 50 percent.

The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider 
his untimely application because in 2008, DFAS advised him that 
he would receive CRDP in annual 10 percent increments beginning 
in 2014.  However, he has not yet received a payment.

In support of his requests, the applicant provides copies of his 
NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service and DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 September 1987.The applicant entered the Air National 
Guard.

According to the applicant’s  NGB Form 22, Report of Separation 
and Record of Service, he was permanently disability retired 
effective 22 October 2007, with a compensable percentage for 
physical disability of 50 percent.  He was credited with 
29 years, 10 months, and 10 days service for pay and 24 years 
and 12 days satisfactory service for retirement.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
increase his disability rating to 80 percent.  The applicant did 
not provide sufficient documentation to speak directly to the 
events surrounding his disability process. However, the 
available documents indicate he was retired for reasons of 
physical disability with a 50 percent disability rating.  As 
background, the Department of Defense and the DVA disability 
evaluation systems operate under separate laws.  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.  The 
fact that a person may have a medical condition does not mean 
that the condition is unfitting for continued military service.  
To be unfitting, the condition must be such that it alone 
precludes the member from fulfilling their military duties.  If 
the board renders a finding of unfit, the law provides 
appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of 
their career.  It must be noted the Air Force disability boards 
must rate disabilities based on the member's condition at the 
time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at 
that time.  It is the charge of the DVA to pick up where the Air 
Force must, by law, leave off.  Under Title 38, Veterans’ 
Benefits, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based 
upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes in the 
severity of a condition.

DPFD also recommends denial of the applicant’s request for CRDP.  
DPFD states that in order to qualify for CRDP, a service member 
must have successfully completed 20 years of active service and 
the applicant does not meet this threshold.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation, with attachment, is 
at Exhibit C.

DFAS administratively corrected the applicant’s record to 
reflect his entitlement to CRDP.   All military retirees not 
retired by reason of physical disability, who are receiving 
disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA) for a service-connected disability rating of 50 percent or 
greater, are eligible for CRDP.  In addition, members retired by 
reason of physical disability with 20 years of total active 
service or 20 years of qualifying service for members of a 
reserve or guard component are also eligible for CRDP.  The 
applicant is eligible for CRDP and Combat Related Special 
Compensation (CRSC).  However, he cannot receive both CRDP and 
CRSC.  DFAS notified the applicant that the CRDP entitlement is 
greater than his entitlement to CRSC; therefore his military 
retired pay account has been corrected to reflect this 
entitlement.

A complete copy of the DFAS evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit D. 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 7 April 2015, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office (Exhibit E).


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant 
increasing his disability rating to 80 percent.  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 the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We 
note that DFAS has administratively corrected the applicant’s 
record to reflect his entitlement to CRDP.  Therefore, relief 
beyond that already granted administratively is not warranted.  
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 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 9 June 2015 under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

       , Panel Chair
       , Member
       , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-03554 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 August 2014, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 24 December 2014,   
                  w/atch.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, DFAS, dated 25 March 2015, w/atchs.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 April 2015.