RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03844 

 INDEX CODE: 110.02 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be medically retired versus being discharged with severance 
pay. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He suffered with back problems early in his Air Force career. He 
injured his back when he fell on ice (twice) which ultimately 
made his back condition more severe and caused him to experience 
depression. He was told by his medical care provider that he was 
being referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). At that 
point, he begged the provider not to refer his case to an MEB. 
The non-commissioned officer working his case encouraged him by 
telling him that he may be able to retire with 20 years of active 
duty service or at least be medically retired. Two weeks later, 
he was informed that he would receive a disability discharge with 
10 percent severance pay, and not be allowed to serve 20 years on 
active duty in order to become eligible to receive a military 
retirement. 

 

He received counsel from an Air Force attorney who advised him 
that it was unlikely his appeal would be overturned. Thus, he 
did not appeal the MEB’s decision and now believes it was due to 
the depression he was experiencing that made him surrender and 
not challenge the decision. 

 

On 31 March 2003, he was medically discharged and received almost 
$55K, which he used to make a down payment on a house for him and 
his family, and he paid off a few debts. Later, the Department 
of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated his disability at 50 percent. 
However, he soon realized he had to pay back the 55K before he 
would begin receiving the 50 percent disability monies from the 
DVA. Not only did he lose out on having a permanent Air Force 
retirement, he had to pay back the severance pay and is no longer 
able to apply for certain jobs due to his disability. He is 
currently unemployed. 

 

In support of his request, applicant provides a copy of a letter 
from a former physician, a copy of a letter from his Senator 
w/atchs, and a copy of a letter of recommendation. 

 



 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 April 1984. He 
was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), 
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 
1 January 2001. 

 

An MEB convened on 21 January 2003 and referred his case to an 
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 22 January 2003, 
the IPEB found him unfit for further military service based on a 
diagnosis of chronic low back pain associated with depression. 
The IPEB recommended he be discharged from the Air Force with 
severance pay. On 28 January 2003, the applicant agreed with the 
findings and waived his right to a Formal Physical Evaluation 
Board (FPEB) hearing. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel 
Council directed his separation from active military service with 
10 percent severance pay on 29 January 2003. He served on active 
duty 18 years, 11 months, and 20 days. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the preponderance of 
evidence shows no error or injustice occurred during the 
applicant’s disability processing. DPSD acknowledges the letter 
of support from the physician from Alaska’s VA regional office 
that states it had been his “experience with the regulations in 
other situations that if someone makes it to their nineteenth 
year and an MEB is going on, they are presumed fit for duty and 
they will usually be allowed to retire.” However, the governing 
regulation provides a definition of presumption of fitness which 
does not apply to the applicant because he did not have an 
approved retirement at the time of the MEB/PEB processing and, 
therefore, did not enter into the presumptive period. 

 

The DPSD complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. In a three page 
synopsis, the Medical Consultant reiterates the applicant’s 
request; provides a detailed analysis of the facts regarding his 
case file and states the applicant has not met the burden of 
proof that an error or injustice exists that justifies a change 
of the record to reflect a medical retirement. 

 

The Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 



 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 February 2009 and 27 July 2009 for review and 
comment within 30 days. 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 error or injustice. After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
submission, we find no evidence of an error and are not persuaded 
by his assertions that he has been the victim of an injustice. 
The evidence of record shows the applicant was appropriately 
processed through the disability evaluation system at the time 
and it appears that the final disposition of his case was proper 
and in accordance with the governing directives, which implement 
the law. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice. 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2008-03844 in Executive Session on 2 September 2009, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

  Member 
 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence for Docket Number 2008-03844 
was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 October 2008, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 24 November 2008. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 February 2009. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 July 2009. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 July 2009. 

 

 

 

 
 

 Panel Chair