RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00061
INDEX CODE:  108.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL: NONE

XXX-XX-XXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The narrative reason on his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to “Permanently Retired under Project 703” or “Permanently Retired” instead of “Permanently Retired by Reason of Physical Disability.”  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not retired because of physical disability, but was retired under Project 703, in which all Reserve officers with 20 years of service were retired or separated at 20 years of service.  

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal statement, and copies of his retirement order, DD Form 214, his final performance report, and a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs identifying his service-connected disability rating.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 September 1950, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  He was appointed an aviation cadet on 10 July 1952.  Having successfully completed training, he was honorably discharged from enlisted status on 31 July 1953 and his appointment as an aviation cadet was terminated.

On 1 August 1953, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force.  He was ordered to active duty on that same date.  Following additional training, the applicant was granted an aeronautical rating of pilot.  The applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of major effective 20 December 1965 with a date of rank of 19 November 1965.  On 5 October 1955, the applicant was indefinitely suspended from flying status for an injury he sustained to his left eye after being hit with a baseball.  The applicant’s records met a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and the results were referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  On 22 July 1970, the IPEB found the applicant was unfit for continued military service because of physical disability and recommended a permanent retirement with compensable rating of 40%.  The applicant disagreed with the findings and requested a formal hearing.  On 31 August 1970, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) also found the applicant unfit for continued military service; however, the board recommended a permanent retirement with compensable rating of 50%.  The applicant concurred with the recommended findings of the board and consequently, on 8 September 1970, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the recommendation of the Physical Review Council that the applicant be retired under the provisions of 10 USC 1201, effective 1 October 1970.  The applicant was honorably relieved from active duty effective 30 September 1970 under the authority of Air Force Manual 35-4, for permanent retirement by reason of physical disability, and was retired effective 1 October 1970.  He had served 20 years and 29 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states the applicant was treated fairly throughout the Disability Evaluation System (DES) process and he was properly rated under federal disability guidelines as required by military laws and policy in effect at the time of his retirement.  It is DPPD’s opinion that a correction to the applicant’s DD Form 214 is inappropriate as all evidence shows he was processed through the Air Force DES and permanently retired under the authority of Title 10, USC, Section 1201, and AFM 35-4.

The DPPD 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 13 February 2004, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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 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 an error or injustice.  After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s retirement because of physical disability in 1970 was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations, which implement the law.  While it may be that the applicant was initially identified for retirement under “Project 703,” he subsequently found unfit for continued military service because of physical disability.  It is interesting to note that that the applicant concurred with the Formal PEB’s findings and recommendation that he be retired for physical disability with a compensable rating of 50 percent.  Neither does the record reveal nor has the applicant provided any evidence that would lead us to believe that he was not physically unfit within the meaning of the governing regulation, which implements the law.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence that the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we agree with the assessment by the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their conclusions as our findings in the case.  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 13 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00061 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jan 04.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.

	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 4 Feb 04.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.

						
									Panel Chair