AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
AUG 1 4 1998
DOCKET NUMBER: 8 8 - 0 0 5 2 4
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
RESUME OF CASE:
On 21 August 1989, the Board considered applicant's requests that
his nonselection for promotion by the Fiscal Year 1975 Temporary
Major Selection Board be voided; his identification for
involuntary release from active duty by the 11 November 1974
Reserve Officer Screening Board (ROSB) be voided; his 31 July
1975 involuntary release from active duty be voided; his 27 June
1977 transfer to the Inactive Status List Reserve Section (ISLRS)
be voided; his 7 June 1977 removal from the major promotion list
be voided; his 25 June 1983 transfer to the Retired Reserve be
voided; he be restored to active duty retroactive to 31 July
1975, he be promoted to major retroactive to 31 March 1978; he be
awarded Reserve point credits for the period August 1975 through
August 1981; he be allowed to retire from active duty after 20
years of credited service; and he be awarded back pay,
allowances, retired pay, and benefits. The Board determined the
application was not timely filed and found no basis to conclude
that it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure
to timely file. In addition, the Board was not persuaded the
record raised issues of error or injustice which required
resolution on the merits. A complete copy of the Record of
Proceedings is attached at M.
In a letter, dated 1 December 1997, to his Congressman, the
applicant provided additional documentation and requested
reconsideration of his application. The applicant's complete
submission is attached at Exhibit N.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
We have carefully reviewed the applicant's complete submission
and the entire evidence of record; however, we still do not find
a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing of the
application for correction of military records. After thoroughly
reviewing the statements submitted by applicant, we still are not
persuaded that the applicant has shown a plausible reason--for the
delay in filing. Although the applicant was living and -working
overseas between 1975 and 1981, this did not preclude his filing.
In addition, as noted by the previous panel, the record does not
raise issues of error or injustice which require resolution on
the merits. Accordingly, we again conclude that it would not be
in the interest of justice to excuse the untimely filing of this
application.
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.
It is the
decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as
untimely.
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 16 July 1998, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603 :
Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chair
Mr. David C . Van Gasbeck, Member
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
9
Exhibit M. Record of Proceedings, dated 27 Oct 89, w/atchs.
Exhibit N. Letter, Congressman, dated 23 Dec 7, w/atchs.
/
HEDV~~Y c. SAUNDERS
Pdnel Chair
/
2 '
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at E. In an undated letter the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of his application. Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit F. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted by applicant, we are...
Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. A complete copy of the Air Staff evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Staff evaluation and states that the reason in the delay in the decoration recommendation is that none of his crew were debriefed after they were repatriated from German POW c no one had any knowledge of decorations. The following members of the Board considered this...
Continuation on active duty for a period of time in order to be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by two selection boards. He was also considered and not selected by the CY79 and CY80 Permanent Major Selection Boards. As a result of an earlier appeal to the AFBCMR, he was considered and not selected by Special Selection Board (SSB) , which convened on 8 November 1982, by each of the above boards.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02077
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was not selected for Regular Air Force (RegAF) by the Fiscal Year 66 (FY66), FY68 and FY70 Regular Air Force Selection Boards. DPSOO opines a direct promotion would be unfair to other officers who were not selected for Regular Air Force and required to retire at the 20 year point without being able to meet a lieutenant colonel promotion board. Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and recommends denial. The provisions of law and directive were violated by the Air Force selection board procedures used when applicant was considered for promotion. Counsel's complete response is attached at Exhibit I.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAE3, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and recommends denial. However, other portions of DODD 1320.09 stated: tlSelection boards convened for different competitive categories or grades may be convened concurrently,Il and When more than one selection board is convened to recommend officers in different competitive categories or grades...
The operation of the Air Force selection boards did not comply with Sections 616 and 617, Based on these illegal actions, he requests that his promotion nonselections be Set aside and correction of his record to reflect continuous active duty until the first day of the month following the decision on this petition. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and...
His record be corrected to reflect continuous active service as a a captain from the date he was separated as a result of his nonselection to the grade of major. He served 15 years and 21 days of active duty and received $15,000.00' in severance pay. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application and recommends denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and recommends denial. The provisions of law and directive were violated by the Air Force selection board procedures used when applicant was considered for promotion. Counsel's complete response is attached at Exhibit I.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: IN THE MATTER OF: SSAN: SSAN: DOCKET NO:- 9 3 - 0/5;/0 NIK NIK 1 7 1993 1 7 1993 consideration of applicant's Applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded to General. After careful request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be...