RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00117

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 JUL 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to reflect her eligibility for Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payment (CRDP).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She took her oath of office and became a member of the Air Force on 29 Mar 63, which would credit her with over 20 years of service for purposes of qualifying her for the CRDP.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a copy of AF Form 133, Oath of Office (Military Personnel).

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s military personnel records indicate she was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on 29 Mar 63, and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 22 Aug 63.

On 24 May 83, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened and established a diagnosis of recurrent L5 radiculopathy on the left secondary to epidural scarring of the L5 nerve root.  The MEB recommended the applicant’s case be forwarded to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

On 2 Jun 83, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) convened and established a diagnosis of recurrent L5 radiculopathy on the left secondary to epidural scarring of the L5 nerve root, status post Apr 82 and Feb 83 lumbar laminectomies.  The IPEB recommended temporary retirement of the applicant with a compensable disability rating of 40 percent.

On 14 Jun 83, the applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB.

On 25 Jul 83, the applicant was relieved from active duty and, effective 26 Jul 83, her name was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).  She was credited with 19 years, 11 months, and 4 days of active service for retirement, and 20 years, 3 months, and 27 days for basic pay.

By Special Order ACD-988, dated 31 Mar 86, the applicant’s name was removed from the TDRL and she was permanently retired by reason of physical disability in the grade of major, with a compensable disability rating of 40 percent.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL) indicated that under the CRDP, an eligible disability retiree is defined as having (a) at least 20 years of service computed under 10 USC 1405; or, (b) at least 20 years of service computed under 10 USC 12732.  Unless it can be established that the applicant performed an additional 26 years of active service, or that she has completed 20 years of qualifying service under 10 12732 and is age 60, she has no entitlement to the CRDP.

A complete copy of the DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response indicating she has provided proof that she had 20 plus years of service for pay purposes, and she believes she should be eligible for CRDP.  It is only fair that she receive this extra pay as she did not leave active duty for any other reason than her sustaining back injuries which were service related.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2006-00117 in Executive Session on 9 May 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, DFAS, dated 6 Mar 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Mar 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Mar 06, w/atch.