AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02693
0 4 1998
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated to active Air Force Reserve status.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
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.
Applicant's submission is attached 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 Force office of
Primary Responsibility (OPR) . Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Career Opportunities Division, HQ ARPC/DAO, states
that the applicant was allowed the opportunity but failed to
submit documentation to support his retention in the active
reserve.
Applicant received an inter-service transfer from the Army
Reserve into the Air Force Reserve on 28 December 1982.
Due to non-participation, he was transferred to Inactive
Status List Reserve Section (ISLRS), effective 17 December 1987.
On 7 June 1993, applicant was notified by HQ ARPC//DSFA of
pending discharge action from ISLRS.
On 15 June 1993, applicant requested and was granted an
extension to 16 August 1993 to begin participation or to submit
justification to support his retention. He failed to respond.
Applicant was discharged from ISLRS effective 8 November
1993, having failed to submit justification for retention.
HQ ARPC/DAO recommends denial of applicant's request.
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 9 February 1998 for review and response within 30 days. As of
this date, no response has been received by this office.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
1.
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 probable error or injustice. After
a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicantls
submission, we are not persuaded that he should be reinstated
into an active Air Force Reserve status. His contentions a r e
duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force. It appears
that the applicant transferred from the Army Reserve into the Air
Force Reserve in December 1982 and, due to non-participation, was
transferred to ISLRS in December 1987.
We note that the
applicant was given the opportunity to submit justification to
support his retention in the Air Force Reserve in 1993, prior to
his discharge in November 1993. However, he failed to respond or
submit documentation to support his retention. We therefore
agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered
either an error or an injustice.
Therefore, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
4. The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a
personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not have
2
materially added to that understanding. 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 probable material error or
injustice; that the application was denied without a personal
appearance; and that t h e 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 8 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603.
M s . Charlene M . Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 5 Jun 97, w/atch.
Exhibit B . Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ ARPC/DAO, dated 14 Jan 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Feb 98.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
3
h
She be retroactive promoted to the grade of 0-4 (major), which should have occurred during the Fiscal Year 1996 (FY96) Reserve of the Air Force Line/Health Professionals Board, that convened at Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (HQ ARPC) on 6 - 10 March 1995. The investigation did in fact conclude and recommend in your favor.” In support of the appeal, applicant submits HQ ARPC/IG Letter, Request for TIG investigation, and Investigating Officer’s Reports. While this Board agrees...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03257
She be retroactive promoted to the grade of 0-4 (major), which should have occurred during the Fiscal Year 1996 (FY96) Reserve of the Air Force Line/Health Professionals Board, that convened at Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (HQ ARPC) on 6 - 10 March 1995. The investigation did in fact conclude and recommend in your favor.” In support of the appeal, applicant submits HQ ARPC/IG Letter, Request for TIG investigation, and Investigating Officer’s Reports. While this Board agrees...
He be reassigned to Extended Active Duty (EAD) as a statutory tour officer to complete 2 years, and 3 months of active duty for completion of 20 years for retirement. The applicant notes that the policy at the time he was renewed for a second tour was that a statutory officer would be continued for a 20-year retirement if they had excellent performance and 12 to 14 years of active duty. However, should the Board elect to provide the applicant relief, they recommend the applicant’s record...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-00242
He be reassigned to Extended Active Duty (EAD) as a statutory tour officer to complete 2 years, and 3 months of active duty for completion of 20 years for retirement. The applicant notes that the policy at the time he was renewed for a second tour was that a statutory officer would be continued for a 20-year retirement if they had excellent performance and 12 to 14 years of active duty. However, should the Board elect to provide the applicant relief, they recommend the applicant’s record...
_________________________________________________________________ OFFICE OF PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION: The Chief, Claims Branch, DFAS-DE/FYCC, advises that review of the applicant’s pay records shows he resigned from the Air Force Reserves with an effective date of August 2, 1996. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Retirement Branch, HQ ARPC/DPAR,...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-01936
_________________________________________________________________ OFFICE OF PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION: The Chief, Claims Branch, DFAS-DE/FYCC, advises that review of the applicant’s pay records shows he resigned from the Air Force Reserves with an effective date of August 2, 1996. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Retirement Branch, HQ ARPC/DPAR,...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00452
A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. The Acting Director, Health Services, HQ ARPC/SG, further evaluated the case and indicates that, during the course of his AFRRSP participation, the MIMSO course was changed to Commissioned Officer’s Training, requiring a longer period of time. The applicant has requested that repayment of the AFRRSP stipend be waived. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to reflect that, instead of resigning from the...
A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. The Acting Director, Health Services, HQ ARPC/SG, further evaluated the case and indicates that, during the course of his AFRRSP participation, the MIMSO course was changed to Commissioned Officer’s Training, requiring a longer period of time. The applicant has requested that repayment of the AFRRSP stipend be waived. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to reflect that, instead of resigning from the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02431
The ADB recommended the applicant be discharged from the USAFR with an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPP asserts that the ADB is responsible for determining character of service for the discharge action; however, it is not the authority for determining the highest grade satisfactorily held for the purpose of retirement. A complete copy of counsel’s response is at Exhibit...
On 2 January 1968, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the applicant's request for reappointment in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of captain and for assignment to the Retired Reserve. After review of the records, DAO found no error or injustice in the application of procedures in effect at the time of applicant's appointment. - Letters from applicant, dated 30 Dec 97 and Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member Panel Chair The...