RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00627
INDEX CODE: 110.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated in the Air National Guard.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was denied reenlistment as a result of reprisal, with no avenue of
appeal (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Available documentation reflects that the applicant, a former member
of the Air National Guard, was released from active duty on 31 Oct 96,
and retired, effective 1 Nov 96, in the grade of master sergeant. He
was credited with 23 years, 2 months, and 25 days of active duty
service.
A Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) Report, dated 4 Jun 96,
indicates that the applicant filed a reprisal complaint under 10 USC
1034, alleging that his Active Guard Reserve (AGR) tour was not
extended as a result of his contacts with an IG. However, the DOD IG
concluded that his allegation of reprisal was not substantiated
(Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed this application and
recommended denial. According to DPPU, membership in the Air National
Guard is not an inherent right of any individual. It is a privilege
and confers upon the individual an obligation to serve in the active
military service in the event of mobilization or emergency, or at such
time as the national security may require. In DPPU’s view, the
applicant was treated fairly and equitably and received everything to
which he was entitled.
A complete copy of the DPPU evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 19
Oct 98 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. The applicant requests
that the Board invoke the provisions of 10 USC 1034 (Whistleblower
Protection Act) while processing his application. He alleges that he
was denied reenlistment as a result of reprisal. However, a DOD IG
investigation has concluded that the applicant’s allegation of
reprisal was not substantiated. No evidence has been presented which
would lead us to believe that the findings of the DOD IG were
erroneous. In view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 2 Sep 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records and
Exhibit C. DOD IG Report, dated 4 Jun 96 (withdrawn).
Exhibit D. Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 24 Sep 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Oct 98.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00627
However, the DOD IG concluded that his allegation of reprisal was not substantiated (Exhibit C). No evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that the findings of the DOD IG were erroneous. Applicant's Master Personnel Records and Exhibit C. DOD IG Report, dated 4 Jun 96 (withdrawn).
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...
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...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force and the Department of the Defense Office of the Inspector General (DOD IG) Report of Investigation (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Executive Support Staff Officer, New York Air National Guard (NYANG), DMNA/ANG-ESSO, reviewed this application and recommended denial. The Report of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00685
On 3 Aug 10, the Vice Chief of Joint Staff signed an order amending the applicants separation from the ANG and transfer to the Air Force Reserve to reflect his discharge from the WYANG and as a Reserve of the Air Force effective 10 Oct 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, para 2.25.2, ANG Unique Separations. In addition, no one had the authority to discharge the applicant from the Reserve of the Air Force (See SAF/IG Report at Exhibit B). According to AFI 36-3209, the authority to...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-05912
In addition, the Department of Defense Inspector General (IG DoD/MRI) concurred with the determination, approved the report, and substantiated the allegations (Exhibit B). We note that based on the Report of Investigation (ROI) from the SAF/IG the applicant was the victim of reprisal under the Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC 1034) by his former commander who denied his reenlistment and attendance at the Chief Executive Course (CEC). Other than the comments in the ROI, the applicant...
Applicant explains that he should have received additional constructive service credit for education and experience upon his transfer to the Air National Guard. The Chief states that applicant’s civilian experience from 1 Oct 92 to 16 Jun 94 is not creditable because this was part-time employment; his experience from 16 Jun 94 through his date of appointment in the Air National Guard was duplicated credit since he was already commissioned in the Army National Guard and according to Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02987
On 13 Jul 11, the DoD/IG office completed their review of the applicants reprisal case and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal/abuse of authority. On 19 Jan 12, the DoD/IG completed their review of the applicants complaint dated 4 Jul 11, and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal by her former commander. DPSID states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.
Available documentation reflects that: On 9 March 1997, the applicant filed a complaint with the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF/IGQ) alleging the squadron commander reprised against him for a protected disclosure by removing him from his lieutenant colonel position in the squadron and reassigning him to a captain’s position in the group. Applicant’s complete statement, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. By letter dated 19 October 1999, applicant provided the results of his request for a...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1999-00453
Available documentation reflects that: On 9 March 1997, the applicant filed a complaint with the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF/IGQ) alleging the squadron commander reprised against him for a protected disclosure by removing him from his lieutenant colonel position in the squadron and reassigning him to a captain’s position in the group. Applicant’s complete statement, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. By letter dated 19 October 1999, applicant provided the results of his request for a...