RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03742
INDEX CODE:  108.05
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NO

	XXXXXXXXXXXXX				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He be paid the remaining amount of severance pay owed to him or be reinstated to a temporary disability retirement list (TDRL) status with a disability rating higher than 30%.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been paid severance pay based on the current E-4 pay grade. His severance pay was based on his E-4 base pay at the time of his separation.  He would not have accepted the severance pay had he known that it would be calculated based on his pay at the time of his discharge.  According to his examining physician, he is not stable enough to be off of TDRL status.  He should be reinstated to TDRL status and be given an increase in his 30% disability rating. 

In support of his application, he provides a personal statement and a copy of page 2 of the Fact Sheet on Discharge with Severance Pay.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 February 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 20 in the grade of airman (E-2) for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the rank of senior airman (E-4) effective and with a date of rank of 26 February 2000.  The applicant was trained in the Air Force Specialty Code 2W151, Aircraft Armament Systems Journeyman career field.  He received three enlisted performance reports for the period 26 February 1997 through 12 September 2000, all with an overall rating of 4, with the last report being referred for financial irresponsibility.  

In November 1999, the applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and was treated with lithium (stabilizes mood swings).  He did well and discontinued the medication in February 2000.  He was doing well off medication until the summer of 2000, when he suffered a relapse that continued into February 2001.  A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was initiated and completed in February 2001.  On 1 March 2001, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) determined he was unfit and recommended his placement on TDRL status with 30% disability.  On 24 April 2001, the applicant was released from active duty with an honorable characterization of service and a narrative reason of temporary disability.  His name was placed on the TDRL due to the diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder (type 1).  The applicant served 4 years, 1 month and 29 days on active duty.

The applicant underwent TDRL reevaluation in July 2002.  On 21 August 2002, the IPEB rated his condition at 10%, determining that his social and industrial adaptability impairment was mild; his condition had improved since being placed on TDRL; and his condition appeared to have stabilized.  The IPEB noted that the applicant had maintained a fulltime job for the last 18 months.  His name was removed from the TDRL and he was discharged effective 20 October 2002.  
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL recommends denial.  DFAS states that the applicant’s severance pay was properly computed in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1210; therefore, no correction is warranted. The DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant summarized the information contained in the applicant’s personnel and medical records and is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted.  It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  Details of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation are at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states, after reviewing the preponderance of evidence provided, they find no error occurred during the applicant’s process through the disability evaluation system.  The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 May 2003 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  As of this date, this office has received no response. 

_________________________________________________________________

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 are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force because of physical disability based on the determination that the compensable rating for his condition was less than 30 percent or the computation of his disability severance pay were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations, which implement the law.  We have seen no evidence indicating that the above-cited actions or findings were contrary to regulation or accepted medical principles.  The applicant’s severance pay was properly computed in accordance with the governing law using his credited active service and the basic pay for his grade at the time of his discharge.  We therefore agree with the assessments by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and the Air Force advisories and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 25 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket No. BC-2002-03742:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 02, with attachment.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL, dated 31 Jan 03.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 14 Mar 03. 
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 23 Apr 03. 
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.