ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03405-2

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NOT INDICATED

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Board reconsider her request and adjust her retirement date to correspond with the date she was removed from the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) and increase her overall disability rating to 80 percent.

RESUME OF THE CASE:

On 13 September 2011, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to add adrenal insufficiency as a diagnosis to AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, dated 22 July 2010, and that this diagnosis be included as part of her overall disability rating.  The Board determined that the applicant had provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief and concurred with the BCMR Medical Advisor’s assessment that although her adrenal insufficiency was unfitting when she was placed on TDRL; at the time of her TDRL reassessment it was reasonably brought under control, and determined not to be unfitting.  For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit G.

On 17 May 2017, the applicant requested reconsideration of her request.  She contends that she was rushed through the medical evaluation process because of a disgruntled supervisor.  In addition, the Physical Evaluation Board removed her diagnosis for adrenal insufficiency and decreased her disability rating from 80 percent to 70 percent; however; she still suffers from adrenal insufficiency.  The Board should review her case since the Physical Disability Review Board (PDBR) was required to review disability ratings assigned to military members who separated between 11 September 2011 and 31 December 2009.  Because of these mistakes, she missed the opportunity to transfer Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to her son.  In support of her request, the applicant provides as new evidence a letter from the PDBR advising the applicant she did not meet the criteria for PDBR review and invited her to submit an application to the Board.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

On 13 November 2012, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request [BC-2012-01770] to allow her to transfer Post 9/11 GI Bill education benefits to her son.  The Transfer of Education Benefits program was not implemented until 1 August 2009, and required that a member be on active duty at the time of transfer.  The Board determined that although the applicant was placed on TDRL on 28 May 2009, she was removed from TDRL on 19 September 2010 and permanently retired.  This period is not considered active duty time. (Exhibit I).

On 11 May 2015, the Board considered the applicant’s requests [BC-2014-03902] to change her discharge date and allow her to transfer Post 9/11 GI Bill education benefits to her son.  The Board determined there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice and denied the applicant’s requests. (Exhibit I).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFDD recommends denying the application.  The applicant was relieved from active duty on 28 May 2009 and placed on TDRL effective 29 May 2009.  On 22 July 2010, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board determined the applicant’s unfitting condition [adrenal insufficiency], for which she was placed on TDRL, was stable.  On 24 August 2010, the applicant concurred with the Informal Physical Evaluation Board findings and recommendations.  Via Special Order ACD-02672, dated 30 August 2010, the applicant was removed from TDRL and retired in the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) effective 19 September 2010.

Members on TDRL do not accrue active duty service time; therefore, once removed from TDRL, a new DD Form 214 is not issued.  A member’s final order removing them from TDRL is a permanent part of the military personnel file and should be attached to the DD Form 214 reflecting the final deposition of permeant retirement.  The complete advisory, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 21 August 2018, for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice and therefore finds no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DPFDD and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2010-03405-2 in Executive Session on 1 November 2018:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit G:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-F, dated 22 September 2011.
Exhibit H:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 17 May 2018.
Exhibit I:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit J	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPFDD, w/atchs, dated 19 August 2018. 
Exhibit K:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, 21 August 2018.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.