RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00471 INDEX CODE: 108.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to reflect a medical retirement with a separation code of “SFJ” (Disability, Permanent), versus being separated for sufficient service for retirement with a separation code of “RBD” (Sufficient Service for Retirement). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was being processed for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) because he was on a physical profile for more than a year. He was told by the Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer that based on her experience, he would most likely be medically retired. Before the results were returned, he interviewed and accepted a federal civil service job. It wasn’t until after he started his new job that he discovered his Service Computation Date could have been changed to allow him to take advantage of a higher leave accrual rate if he had been medically discharged. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of a Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) memorandum, Physical Profile Serial Report, MEB documents, his DD Form 214, electronic communications, Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) documents, civilian employment documents, military discharge order, medical documentation, and DVA Rating Decisions. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served from 23 October 1981 to 31 May 2006 and was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) with a date of rank of 1 October 2001. On 20 December 2005, an MEB diagnosed the applicant with Cervical Spondylosis with Myelopathy and referred the applicant’s records to an IPEB. The IPEB findings and recommendations, dated 29 December 2005, diagnosed the applicant with Chronic Neck Pain associated with C4-7 Fusion without evidence of Myelomalacia, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and Asymmetric High Frequency Hearing Loss. The IPEB found the applicant not unfit for duty because of physical disability and recommended he be returned to duty. On 31 May 2006, the applicant was voluntarily released from active duty and retired effective 1 June 2006 for sufficient service for retirement. He served 24 years, 7 months, and 8 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the applicant applied for a regular service retirement in January 2006, requesting a discharge date of 31 May 2006. His DD Form 214 correctly lists the reason for separation as sufficient service for retirement as he had the required 20 years of service. “RBD” is the correct separation code for a member who separates with a regular retirement and not for medical reasons. The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s disability processing. The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states the applicant has not provided evidence of fraud, mistake of law, or substantial new evidence to show he is authorized a physical disability retirement. The fact the applicant has a disability rating by the DVA and is authorized disability compensation by the DVA does not mean the Air Force should change his non-disability retirement to a disability retirement for any purpose, whether or not he would be eligible for more federal civil service entitlements if the Air Force retired him for disability. The complete DPSOR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 13 August 2010 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find that it supports a determination that he was improperly retired. We note the applicant’s assertion that his records should be corrected to show he received a medical retirement; however, we note that an IPEB found his medical condition did not prevent him from reasonably performing the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating; therefore, he was returned to duty. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Forces 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. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00471 in Executive Session on 30 September 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00471: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Feb 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 18 May 10. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 27 May 10, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 10.