b 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR  CORRECTION O F   MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD O F   PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01425 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His record be  corrected to show twenty years of service with no 
break. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

In  1986, his  personnel office mishandled his  enlistment.  This 
has created 
problems for him in receiving Veteran Administration 
Educational 
Benefits. 

Applicant's 

complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

-- 

STATEMENT OF  FACTS: 
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment on 7 September 1973. 
He was discharged on 5 December 1973. 

P 

On  6  December  1973,  he  accepted  a  commission  as  a  second 
lieutenant. 

The applicant was  involved in an automobile accident on  13 July 
1985, and was diagnosed with  hyperthyroidism.  He was placed  on 
medical hold on 27 September 1985.  While on medical hold, he was 
passed  over  for  promotion  twice.  On  1  December  1986,  he  was 
declared medically fit for duty. 

On 12 December 1986, he was released from active duty. 

On 8 June 1987, the applicant was notified that he was authorized 
to  reenlist  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  in  the  grade  of  staff 
sergeant, with  the  date  of  rank  11  September 1973, provided  he 
did  so within  six months  of  the  date  of  release  in  an  officer 
status. 
In  addition,  the  applicant  was  notified  that  the 
notification  must  be  presented  at  an  Air  Force  base  with  CBPO 
facilities;  as  the  necessary  authority  for  establishing  a 
reenlistment date in the grade of Staff Sergeant. 

. 

97- 01425 

On  12  June  1 9 8 7 ,   he  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  in  the 
grade of Staff Sergeant. 

Air  Force  Regulation  33- 3  paragraph  3 - 7 ( h )   states  that  an 
applicant must submit a letter through CBPO retirement u n a  to HQ 
AFMPC/DPMAPA  requesting  approval to enlist.  Requests  s-ubmitted 
after  separation  are  sent  directly  to  HQ  AFMPC/DPMAPA  but  the 
applicant must not have more than a six month break in service. 
Applicant's APR/EPR profile since 1 9 8 8   follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 
2 7   Jan 8 8  
2 7   Jan 8 9  
2 7   Jan 9 0  
2 7   Jan 9 1  
2 7   Jan 92 
2 7   Jan 93 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

9  (Old system) 
9 
4  (New system) 
4 
5 
5 

The  Chief,  Skills  Management  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel 
Program Management, reviewed this application and states that in 
a letter dated 1 April  1 9 8 7 ,   the applicant requested approval to 
enlist.  The approval was granted by a letter, dated 8  June 1987, 
and the applicant was enlisted on 1 2   June 1 9 8 7 .   Since they have 
no  record of  any  request prior  to  1 April  1987,  they  recommend 
denial of applicant's  request. 

-- 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states that he did not 
realize there was a problem with his records until he applied for 
Veteran  Administration benefits.  Retired  and  disabled  veterans 
go through a lot to get minor errors corrected.  He feels that he 
should receive benefits for which he is entitled for serving his 
country, nothing more or nothing less.  In reference to the first 
paragraph  of  the  advisory  opinion, he  believes  his  package  was 
filed in a timely manner.  On 16 February 1995, he sent a request 
to  the National  Personnel Records  Center  (NPRC), requesting his 
DD  Form 214 be  corrected  to  show no break  in military  service. 

2 

. 

97- 01425 

He states it took over a year before he received a response from 
his letter.  He submitted a second request to NPRC  and waited a 
month before he called the Director, who referred him to a SMSgt, 
who referred him to SAF/MIBR at Randolph AFB. 
A copy of applicant's  response is attached at Exhibit E.  c- 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Skills  Management  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel 
Program Management, reviewed this application and states that the 
applicant had to be discharged from his officer status before he 
could  reenlist.  The  Medical  Standards  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPAMM, 
advises that members on medical hold  cannot separate until they 
are removed from this status. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit F. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
and  counsel on  2  February  1998, for review and  response wikhin 
As  of  this  date,  no  response  has  been 
thirty  (30) days. 
received. 

,THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies pxovided by existing 
law or regulations. 

the 

2.  The application was not timely filed; however,  it is in 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented 
to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice. 
We 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging 
the 
merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinions 
and 
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as 
the 
basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been 
the 
victim of an error or injustice.  We note that the applicant 
was 
placed  on  medical  hold  on  27  September  1985.  He  was  declared 
medically f i t   for duty on 1 December 1986.  He was  released from 
active duty on 12 December 1986 and had a break in active service 
until  12 June 1986.  The applicant requested approval to  enlist 
in April  1987, and his request was approved on 8 June 1987.  The 
applicant  enlisted  on  12  June  1987.  We  have  no  record  of  any 

3 

. 

97-01425 

enlistment requests prior  to 1 April  1987, and  find no evidence 
that  the  Air  Force  miscounseled  the  applicant  concerning  his 
right to request enlistment in the Air  Force.  Therefore, in the 
absence  of  substantial  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no 
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

L. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 this application in 
Executive Session on 14 May 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36- 
2603: 

Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair 
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member 
Mr. Terry A.  Yonkers, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 April 1997. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, dated 22 August 1997. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 September 1997. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, dated 13 January 1998. 
Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 February 1998. 

CHARLENE M.  BRADLEY 
Panel Chair 

4