ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00427
INDEX CODE: 131.05
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of rank (DOR) be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to
change his DOR to Jun 94 (Exhibit E).
On Aug 98, the applicant faxed additional information indicating this
information should help his case (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information
from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of
the additional documentation, the applicant has not provided
sufficient evidence of error or injustice. In accordance with
National Guard Regulation (NGR) (AF) 36-4, the applicant was eligible
for position vacancy promotion on or after Jun 96. The Officer
Promotion Request that was submitted by the Air Refueling Squadron
(ARS) to the Mission Support Flight (MSF) was undated. It is further
noted that the Commander, ARS Memorandum, dated Apr 96, indicated
that applicant “completed the prescribed minimum creditable promotion
service on Jun 96.” It appears the commander submitted the
applicant’s promotion prior to meeting minimum requirements. Based on
this early submission, the MSF was unable to schedule a Federal
Recognition Review Board and it appears the applicant’s promotion was
held until the first scheduled Unit Training Assembly (UTA) after Jun
96.
Based on the above information and the lack of additional supporting
documentation, DPPU recommends denial of relief. Further, the Federal
Recognition Examining Board, which convened on Aug 96, was within a
reasonable period of time and was within regulatory procedures of NGR
(AF) 36-4 and NGR (AF) 36-3.
A complete copy of the additional Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
applicant on Jan 99 for review and response. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. We have reviewed the entire
application and the additional documentation provided by the
applicant. However, we are unpersuaded that a revision of the earlier
determination in this case is warranted. We are not convinced that
the applicant’s contentions override the comments provided by the
Chief, Utilization, dated Dec 98, in which she states that the Officer
Promotion Request that was submitted by the ARS to the MSF was
undated and that the Commander, ARS memorandum, dated Apr 96,
indicated that applicant “completed the prescribed minimum creditable
promotion service on Jun 96” and that it appears that the commander
submitted the applicant’s promotion prior to meeting minimum
requirements. The Chief further states that the Federal Recognition
Examining Board that convened on Aug 96 was within a reasonable period
of time and was within regulatory procedures of NGR (AF) 36-4 and NGR
(AF) 36-3. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force ANG 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 again find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 1 July 1999, under the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Ms. Sophie Clark, Member
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. ROP, dated 17 Dec 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Fax material fr applicant, dated 20 Aug 98,
w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 16 Dec 98.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Jan 99.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 11 Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to 9 Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-00427A
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 11 Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to 9 Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not...
If the Board grants the request, the cost of premiums should be deducted from payments. He provided documentation that clearly indicates the Ready Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Program was established by Congress to provide coverage for Reservists who have been issued an order to involuntary active duty for covered service under the authority of Title 10, USC, Section 12304. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
She enlisted on 11 Jun 98 and the college transcript is dated after the fact. A complete 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 applicant on 14 Dec 98 for review and response. WAYNE R. GRACIE Panel Chair INDEX CODE: 131.05 AFBCMR 98-02595 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00833 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant, Air National Guard, be changed from 1 Sep 96 to 1 May 83, which would allow him to be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant effective 15 Nov 97. However, when he...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03576
DPP states that since the applicant never enlisted with the --- ANG or any other ANG unit she cannot be re-instated. DPPRSR states that the PALACE CHASE program requires the member to sign a contract in which the member agrees to serve two times whatever is currently owed to the Air Force in an Air Reserve Component unit. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Apr 03.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 2 AFBCMR 98-00545 APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 March 1998 for review and comment within 30 days. Essentially, applicant contends that as a result of errors in his records, the Calendar Year 1997 (CY97) Central Lieutenant Colonel Board was given an inaccurate impression of his record; however, after reviewing the evidence of record, we are...
A complete copy of the ANG/DPPU evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter, dated 14 Jul 00, counsel provided a response amending the requested relief, which is attached at Exhibit G. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the findings of a DOD IG Investigation, which concluded that the applicant’s removal from his...
We note that the duty history portion of the CY98 officer selection brief (OSB) correctly indicated the applicant’s duty location as CENTCOM, therefore, the information was available for the promotion board’s review. Additionally, while the citation for the JSAM was not in applicant’s officer selection record (OSR) when the promotion board convened, we note it was listed on the CY98 OSB and a discrepancy report was filed in the OSR; therefore, we must presume the promotion board members had...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states the information provided by ARPC/DPAR is incorrect or does not apply to him because he was not a member of the Ready Reserves and his name was not removed from the recommended promotion list since his retirement orders show that he has the permanent Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel. A complete copy of applicant's response is at Exhibit F. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...