RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03839 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His DD Form 214, Certificate or Release from Active Duty be changed to reflect he completed 20 years of active duty service. 2. He be paid Concurrent Receipt and Disability Pay (CRDP) per Title 10, United States Code (USC). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was denied CRDP even though he is being paid retirement benefits based on 20 years of service. On 21 May 90, he was discharged due to a service-connected mental health condition. He was informed to accept the early discharge; that it would be honorable and he would receive the same benefits, as if he completed 20 years of active duty service. He accepted the discharge and started receiving retirement payments based on 20 years of active service. In 03, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) awarded him a compensable disability rating of 100 percent. In 91 and 92, he was recalled to active duty for medical evaluations; however, these periods of active service are not reflected on his DD Form 214. He was never informed that he would lose his entitlement to CRDP because he retired prior to reaching 20 years of active duty service. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 8 Jan 69, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 21 Mar 90, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened to consider the applicant for continued active duty. The board recommended the applicant be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for Alcohol Dependence; Mental Disorder (not otherwise specified); History of Delirium (most likely substance induced); No diagnosis but with dependent and anti-social personality traits, and Mild Anemia of undetermined etiology, asymptomatic. On 23 Mar 90, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendations of the MEB. On 10 Apr 90, the IPEB reviewed the case and found the applicant unfit and recommended a temporary retirement with a disability rating of 30 percent. The Informal PEB (IPEB) noted the applicant had three Axis I psychiatric diagnoses, with a definite impairment for social and industrial adaptability. On 17 Apr 90, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB. On 26 Apr 90, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) directed the applicant’s name be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a compensable disability rating of 30 percent. On 26 May 90, he was placed on the TDRL with a compensable disability rating of 30 percent. On 18 Oct 91, the applicant underwent a PEB TDRL reevaluation. The PEB found him unfit and recommended he be permanently retired with a compensable disability rating of 30 percent. The PEB noted he remained unfit for duty due to chronicity of his mental illness and had been consistently rated at 30 percent. On 8 Nov 91, the applicant concurred with the recommended findings. On 19 Nov 91, the SAFPC directed the applicant’s name be removed from the TDRL. On 29 Nov 91, the applicant was permanently retired with a disability rating of 30 percent. He was credited with 19 years, 9 months and 21 days of active duty service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. DPSD states that eligibility for CRDP requires at least 20 years of creditable service IAW 10 U.S.C. §1414(b) (1). On 19 Nov 91, special order ACD-399 was issued reflecting the applicant had 19 years, 9 months and 21 days of active service; therefore, he is ineligible to apply for CRDP. DPFD states that time spent on the TDRL is “retired time” and does not count towards active service. While on the TDRL, retired Air Force members are required to undergo periodic physical evaluations and are provided travel orders to these appointments. However, this time is not considered active service as the member is in a retired status. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterated his original contention that he was recalled back on active duty twice after he retired and was not given credit for this time. The 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 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 careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of this case, however, other than the applicant's own uncorroborated assertions, persuasive evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe the applicant was miscounseled. While the applicant argues that he was not given credit for the time he was on the TDRL, we do not find his assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR). Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of either an error or injustice. In view of the above and 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 issue(s) 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 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-2012-03839 in Executive Session on 9 May 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Aug 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 26 Sep 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Oct 12. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated.