AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AUG 1 9
IN THE MATTER OF:
M
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01116
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that 21 days of leave be restored to his leave
account. 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 B). The advisory opinion was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit C).
Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on
the evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by
applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied
rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not
followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no
basis to disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
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. Douglas J. Heady, Tr. Joseph G. Diamond,
and Mr. Henry Romo, Jr. considered this application on 11 Aug 98
in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-
2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
DOUGLAS J. HEADY
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Advisory Opinion
C.
D. Applicant's Response
SAl?/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E A I R FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R
RANDOLPH AIR FORCE B A S E TEXAS
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPSFC
550 C Street West, Ste 37
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4739
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records
Requested Action and Basis ,for Request. Restore 2 1 days charged as leave for 2 1
Jun - 11 Jul97. Applicant states he understood he would be on convalescent leave during
this time.
AB-
Facts and Discussion. Applicant was on leave en route between assignment from
Leave history shows 8 days charged leave 1 Jun - 8 Jun
AFB to
days c o n s n t leave 14 - 20 Jun 97, and 39 days charged leave 21 Jun - 29 Jul
AFB hospital on 9 Jun due to acute low back
97. Applicant states he reported to
pain and leg weakness. He was diagnosed as
k and was admitted to
the hospital for two days. On 11 Jun 97 he flew to
Medical Center where he
was seen by a neurosurgeon. Applicant states he
ould be on
convalescent leave for 30 days upon returning to
Jun, his leave location
between assignments. On 20 Jul97, applicant received the doctor’s statement dated 17
Jun 97 and discovered the convalescent leave was not for one (1) month. The doctor’s
statement recommends one (1) week convalescent leave and a temporary profile during
this period of
before he left
would have been the approval authority for the convalescent leave based on the
recommendation of the attending physician. In this case, applicant was properly charged
leave en route between assignments for the days in excess of the authorized 7 days
convalescent leave and allowable travel time. We cannot support granting relief.
case, applicant failed to obtain the doctor’s memorandum
Medical Center. Further, his unit commander at Eglin AFB
Recommendation. Deny. However, if the AFBCMR decides to grant relief,
restore 21 days to current leave account.
// s / G b g 9 / /
Chief, Commanders’ Programs Branch
As to the 23 June 1997 duty history entry, the Air Force office of primary responsibility, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, stated that the applicant's letter to the P0597C board president, which explained his then current duty title, was in his Officer Selection Record (0%) when it was considered by the P0597C selection board. The applicant requests two corrections to his duty history. The applicant requests his duty history entry, effective 2 Oct 92, be updated to reflect “Chief, Commodities Section”...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D.C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-02258 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and AFI 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: ry records of the Department of the A r Force relating t corrected to show that 14 days of leave...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 1 9 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03481 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4M be changed, and, that he be advised as to the meaning of his narrative reason for separation of "Defective Enlistment Agreement." The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests and provided advisory opinions to the Board (Exhibit D). The applicant is...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
Applicant states he lost leave because his residency program prevented him from taking normal leave. Therefore, he had 79 days on 1 Oct 96, used 13 days, and had 96 days as of 30 Sep 97. He requests reinstatement of lost leave based on AFBCMR’s rationale for restoring 19 days on 3 Jul97.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98- 02983 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36- 2603, and having assured compliance with th.e provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it-is directed that: The pertinen Force relating to show that ninetee leave balance. Applicant had 60...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Section 8961, Title 10, U.S.C., (Atch 5) states: “Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law a regular or reserve of the Air Force who retires other than for physical disability retires in the regular or reserve grade that he holds on the date of his retirement.” Again, based on the Comptroller...
The appropriate Air Force off ice evaluated applicant I 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). .” Another states “I know that I can reenlist rather than extend, but I have elected to execute this extension instead of reenlisting.” Both of these statements clearly indicate the applicant was aware of the reenlistment options.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). - After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. Applicant did not identi@ any specific errors in the discharg&progessing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the discharge he received.
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...