AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SEP 2 9
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00432
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
Applicant requests she be given all back benefits and the
opportunity to serve as an Aerial Port Officer in the Air Force
Reserves. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request
and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of record, we find the application untimely.
Applicant did not file this request within three years after the
alleged error or injustice was discovered, or reasonably could
have been discovered, as required by 10, U.S.C. 1552 and Air
Force Instruction 39-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible
reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the
record raises issues of error or injustice which require
resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be
in the interest of justice to excuse applicant's failure to file
in a timely manner.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied as untimely.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Mrs. Margaret A. Zook
and Mr. Gary Appleton considered this application on 22 September
1998, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction
36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U .C. 1552.
hw
W. MULGREW
DAVID
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D.
E. Applicant's Response
AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
.
.
.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE RESERVE COMMAND
1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ A F R O P M B
155 2nd St
Robins AFB GA 31098-1635
1. I have review
claims that an err
involuntarily separated because she is an African-American female who told an Air
Force colonel about the
occurred on active duty a
agencies that took the administrative action against the member.
request for correction of military records. She
occurred when she was on active duty and was
00.00. Because the alleged injustice
he case should be reviewed by those
stated that she desires to serve as an Aerial Port oflicer in the Air
2.
Force Reserve. She must submit her application for commissioning IAW AFI 36-
2005. In addition, she should request an age limitation waiver and an exception to
policy waiver for a previously held commission. If you have any questions, I can be
reached at DSN 497-0283.
EDDIE D. SWINT, MSgt, USAF
Chief, Career Enhancement Branch
Military Personnel Division
DEPARTMENT OF T H E 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 AIR FORCE B A S E TEXAS
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRP
550 C Street West, Suite 1 1
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Record
The applicant, while serving on active duty in the grade of second lieutenant, was
determined, by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, to be not qualified for
promotion to the grade of first lieutenant. As a result, the Secretary of the Air Force directed that
she be involuntarily discharged under the provisions of AFR 36-12, Involuntary Discharge: 2d Lt
not Qualified for Promotion. Applicant was discharge on 23 Sep 85 with an honorable discharge.
She had 02 years 08 month and 12 days total active service.
Requested Action. The applicant is requesting all back benefits and the opportunity to
serve as an Aerial Port Officer in the Air For Reserves. Applicant claims that she was
involuntarily separated after she received her promotion and because she is an Mican-American
female that told an Air Force Colonel that we had wasted 27 million dollars. This advisory will
address only the discharge processing in the case.
Facts. The commander’s recommendation for not qualified for promotion case file is not
in applicant’s master personnel record. However, Pursuant to AFR 36-89, the Air Force
Personnel Board met on 05 Aug 85 to determine if applicant was qualified for promotion to the
grade of first lieutenant. The Board review all available records in connection with the
proceeding and found that the applicant was not qualified for promotion to the grade of first
lieutenant and recommended immediate discharge fiom all appointments she held in the United
States Air Force. On 09 Sep 85, the Secretary of the Air Force determined that the applicant was
not qualified for promotion to first lieutenant and directed her immediate discharge fiom the Air
Force. The case has been reviewed for separation processing and there are no errors or
irregularities in the separation processing causing an injustice to the applicant. The discharge
complies with directives and law in effect at the time of discharge.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01185 SEP 2 9 1998 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES Applicant requests that (1) her Calendar Year 1998 (CY981 Lieutenant Colonel, Nurse Corp, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be replaced with a new PRF and (2) she be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. The appropriate Air...
The Air Force has indicated that although a copy of the MSM citation was not in his Officer Selection Record (OSR), the decoration was listed on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) assessed by the Board; therefore, the board members were aware of the award. The Air Force also indicated that central boards evaluate the entire officer record and it is highly unlikely the missing MSM citation from applicant's OSR was the cause of his nonselection. Applicant requests special selection board...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1993-06923A2
The applicant’s case was denied (Exhibit N). In addition to the amended requests as indicated above, counsel discusses the issues relative to the applicant’s case being remanded by the court. __________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request AFPC/DPPPE provided an evaluation of the issue of whether the additional rater on the applicant’s May 86 OER violated AFR 36-10.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C ) . The applicant is requesting several actions we will address the one requesting the Board restore him to the rank of Airman Second Class. - Based upon the information provided we are forwarding this application for correction of military records without recommendation.
A complete copy of the Air Force evafuation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a 16-page rebuttal. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the additional Air Force evaluations and provided a two-page rebuttal (see Exhibit K) . In essence, a majority of the board must recommend an officer for promotion and each member is required to certify...
IN THE MATTER OF: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03473 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO I APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: Comments be added to Sections VI (Rater Overall Assessment) and VI1 (Additional Rater Overall Assessment) on t h e Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 1 January 1993, and that he be g i v e n consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1997...
If neither the member nor the former spouse requests the election change during the one-year eligibility period, former spouse coverage may not be established thereafter. Discussion: Although the member made no election change during the required time limit, he did not request coverage for his former spouse be terminated and SBP premiums continued to be deducted from his retired pay, all indicative of his intent to maintain her as the eligible SBP beneficiary. Recommendation: Although...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). At the time she was placed on TDRL, promotion testing was being conducted for the 96E6 cycle. Although she is requesting supplemental promotion consideration to TSgt for the 97E6 cycle, she was ineligible for consideration because she was not on active duty.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant’s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Requested Action, The applicant is requesting a change in his separation and reentry codes which would allow him to reenlist in the Air Force reserves. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate counseling was provided and appropriate action was taken.
A I R FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97 COUNSEL: NONE 01879 HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason f o r his separation be changed to allow eligibility to be considered for a commission in the Air National Guard (ANG); or, eligibility to enlist in the ANG. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s request to change the reason for discharge was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on...