DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, D. C.
Office of the Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR 97-02678
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for
Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section11 552, Title 10, United States
Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
ecords of the Department of the Air Force relating t-
corrected to show that:
a. On 30 December 1993, he resigned his Regular Air Force commission.
b. On 3 1 December 1993, he was released from active duty and transferred to the
Air Force Reserve.
captain under the provisions of Section 891 1, Title 10, United States Code.
c. On 1 January 1994, he was retired for length of service in the Reserve grade of
Air Force Review Boards Agency
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02678 pru~ 2 7 1998 m COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show that he.resigned his regular
commission and retired as a reserve officer. t
Examiner's Note:
The applicant originally requested a waiver to the dual
compensation law; however, in his response to the Air Force
evaluation, he amended his request as indicated above.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THA T:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Fozce.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this
Record of Proceedings.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and
states that while the applicant arguably has an equitable
grounding for his request for a waiver of the dual compensation
law, by law, waiver authority in these matters lies with the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) , and they recommend he seek
his remedy in that venue.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a
response which is attached 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice to
warrant correcting the applicant's records to indicate that he
resigned his regular commission and was retired as a reserve
officer. In support of the applicant's request, he has provided
$")
a statement from h e Acting Civilian Personnel Officer at
Based on this statement, it appears the app icant
personnel representatives at both ar%map
AFB that he would not be effected by the
. The Staff Judge Advocate has indicated
that the applicant has an equitable grounding for his request.
We also note that the applicant has amended his application to
indicate that he resigned his regular commission and was retired
as a reserve officer. In view of this and since the applicant
has substantiated that he was miscounseled, we believe the
applicant should be provided the requested relief. Therefore, we
recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. On 30 December 1993, he resigned his Regular Air Force
commission.
b. On 31 December 1993, he was released from active duty and
transferred to the Air Force Reserve.
c. On 1 January 1994, he was retired for length of service
in the Reserve grade of captain under the provisions of Section
8911, Title 10, United States Code.
r.
2
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 18 August 1998, under the provisions of AFI
36-2602:
Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chair
Mr. Dana J. Gilmour, Member
Examiner (without vote)
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. App1icantI.s Master Personnel'tRecords.
Exhibit C. Letter,
Exhibit D. Letter,
Exhibit E. Letter,
AFPC/JA, dated 14 Nov 97.
AFBCMR, dated 1 Dec 97.
Applicant, dated Feb 98, /atchs.
d d k
0
3
D E P A R T M E N T OF THE A I R F O R C E
-
H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R
R A N D O L P H A I R FORCE B A S E T E X A S
U.S. AIR FORCE B
1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7
14 November 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPC/JA
550 C Street West Suite 44
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4746
%
.I
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records
REQUESTED CORRECTION: The applicant is asking the AFBCMR’to change his
mpensation law when he
military records to show that he was granted an exe
was hired as a civilian Meteorological Technician
BASIS FOR THE REQUEST: On 8 July 1996, the applicant, a retired regular officer,
applied for and was offered a civilian Air Force position as a meteorological Technician at I)
Prior to accepting the position, the applicant asked at least three different Civilian
es whether he would be subject to the dual compensation rules
retired regular officers. He was counseled by the Civilian Personnel Office at
AFB and by personnel at the Air Force Personnel Center that the dual compensa
only to field grade officers and since he retired in the grade of Captain, the law would not apply
, the applicant accepted the civilian position and moved from
In August 1996, the applicant was informed by DFAS,
Cleveland that he was covered by the Dual Compensation Act of 1964 and that deductions would
be made from his retired pay. The significant reduction in pay has apparently caused’ the
applicant severe financial hardship, and he is seeking relief from congressional sources as well as
the AFBCMR.
RECOMMENDATION: While we sympathize with the applicant’s situation, we are
nevertheless compelled to recommend the AFBCMR deny the applicant’s requested relief. The
AFBCMR is not authorized to act on this request. While the applicant arguably has an equitable
grounding for his request, clearly, the path he is compelled to follow lies outside the AFBCMR’s
charter. He is not seeking to correct any military records. What the applicant is asking for is a
waiver of the dual compensation law applicable to all retired, regular officers who seek
employment with the federal government. By laW, waiver authority in these matters lies with the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and we recommend he seek his remedy in that venue.'
'I
' 32 C. F.R. 84.33 outlines the process for seeking a waiver from the provisions of the dual compensation act and designates
the Director of OPM as the waiver authority. 5 CFR part 553 and AFI 36-802, Chapter 2 set forth the specific procedures for
obtaining a waiver from OPM.
2
The applicant committed a violation of the Honor Code that was deserving of disenrollment, and none of his arguments can change that fact. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant was disenrolled from the Air Force Academy for an honor code violation. We further note that the Air Force Psrsonnel Board, concerned about the appearance of inconsistent treatment 3 AFBCMR 97-03098 - regarding the applicant‘s case and a similar case of another cadet, returned the applicant’s case to...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . Further, the issues raised in this application were all raised in some form during the processing of the original actions, and were discussed in the legal reviews at that time. Due to the fact the applicant had more than 20 years active service, the action to DFR was processed as a “dual action” case so that consideration of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-01446 INDEX CODE 106.00 110.02 134.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general discharge [upgraded by the Discharge Review Board (DRB) from under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC)] be upgraded to honorable, all derogatory materials be deleted from her records, and she be reimbursed...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00343
Second, he is concerned the Board might consider not granting his request to correct the known errors on the SF-50B as the Board may only correct military records - not civilian records. Based on the evidence of record, had the applicant not been separated, he would have continued to serve in the Air National Guard (ANG). We note applicant’s request that he be promoted to lieutenant colonel three years from the date of the Board.
While at a bar on 27 January 1993, applicant was introduced to the victim by a male acquaintance known by the victim. On 8 March 1994, the HQ Air Mobility Command (AMC) JA found the case legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended applicant's request to retire in lieu of discharge be denied. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retirements Branch at HQ AFPC/DPPRR reviewed this appeal and states that the recommendation by applicant's commander for discharge for civilian conviction was...
His oncologist has stated that, had a testicular exam been done in October 1993, the cancer would have been diagnosed then. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Physical Education Branch, HQ AFPC/DPAME, reviewed the case and states that for the period 1986-1994, while in Medical School on HPSP Scholarship and while completing his residency, the applicant was in an inactive, obligated Reserve status. A copy of the complete Air...
His records be purged as follows: All nonselections be deleted; his separation be voided; and his records be corrected to reflect constructive active duty service as appropriate. On 5 Aug 96, the Board considered and denied the applicant's requests that his nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel be set aside; and, that he be directlv promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, or afforde; "effective" Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration (see AFBCMR 93-01960,...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01269
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 01269 INDEX CODE: 137.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 OCTOBER 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to terminate his spouse only coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) retroactive to the date of his Civil Service (CS) retirement (24 May 1973). PL 92-425,...
There is no evidence of error or irregularity in che award of Ehis rating given the applicant’s condition at that point in time. The Medical 2 .‘ consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit I. AFBCMR 93-00292 APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a copy of applicant’s bone density report (see Exhibit K) .
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02347
On 14 Jun 99, the applicant submitted a request to the SAF to rescind his resignation. A complete copy of counsel’s response is at Exhibit L. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. After the PEB process was finalized and the applicant found unfit, SAFPC reviewed the accepted RILO, the completed PEB evaluation, the applicant’s concurrence with the IPEB’s recommendation and the rescission request.