RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01727
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His assignment declination statement be declared void.
2. His Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) for promotion to the grade of
senior master sergeant (E-8) be reinstated.
3. He be given the option of reinstatement on active duty.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was denied due process in his assignment selection because his Short
Tour Return Date (STRD) was changed without his knowledge.
The applicant states that following an audit of his personnel records, AFPC
made a significant change to his assignment history which triggered his
short tour assignment selection. Neither he or the Military Personnel
Flight (MPF) were notified of the change to his assignment history. He is
not questioning the validity of the change to his STRD; however, he
believes that by not affording him due process, the system has back-fired.
He received a two-month notice of a remote assignment to Korea. He elected
to retire, rather than leave his wife to shoulder the additional burdens of
an out-of-cycle, short notice PCS. He would have taken the remote
assignment, had he known sooner about the adjustment to his short tour
date.
In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a statement from the
Commander, Headquarters Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (AFMC). The
commander states that there is no question that returning the applicant to
active duty and allowing his promotion would benefit the Air Force. The
commander also states that manning in the Air Traffic Control career field
is critically low.
The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
While assigned to Galena AFB, Alaska, the applicant’s request for a
humanitarian assignment to Bergstrom AFB, Texas was approved and his
assignment was curtailed after serving 152 days. His STRD was erroneously
updated to reflect completion of a short tour for his assignment at Galena
AFB, as he had not completed the required 181 days.
On 10 January 1998, the applicant was notified of a short tour assignment
to Osan AB, Korea and declined the assignment.
On 15 January 1998, he submitted an application for voluntary retirement,
effective 1 June 1998. At the time of his retirement application, his High
Year of Tenure (HYT) was 1 July 2001 (24 years of active service).
On 20 February 1998, promotion selections for cycle 98E8 were made.
Although the applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration, his
assignment declination had not yet processed to the promotion file at AFPC
and he was erroneously selected for promotion with a Promotion Sequence
Number of 889.0. Upon promotion data verification, the applicant was
removed from the promotion list.
The applicant retired for sufficient service for retirement in the grade of
master sergeant (E-7) on 1 June 1998. He completed 20 years, 10 months,
and 18 days of active service.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Superintendent, Assignment Procedures, AFPC/DPAPP1, reviewed this
application and states that they could not give the applicant short tour
credit based solely on the incorrect STRD he was given in 1990. They
cannot in good faith award short tour credit based on the 152 days he
served in Alaska. To do otherwise, would be providing an injustice to all
of the Air Force members that did not receive this entitlement and also
served less than the required 181 days. At the time the applicant was
given his assignment to OSAN AB, he made a conscious decision to decline
the assignment in writing by accomplishing a PSC Declination. The fact
that his STRD was corrected in 1996 should not be the basis for his
actions. Therefore, they do not recommend removal of the PCS Declination
statement.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application
and states that a career airman who declines to extend or reenlist to
obtain service retainability for a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) is
automatically ineligible for promotion consideration. Because his PCS
declination had not processed to the promotion file when selections were
made, he was erroneously selected for promotion. Once the assignment
declination was processed, the erroneous promotion was canceled. They note
that the declination form contains a statement informing the member that
he/she becomes ineligible for both promotion and reenlistment by signing
the form. Therefore, they recommend denial of his requests.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
The Retirements Branch, AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed this application and states
that Title 10, United States Code, Section 8961, states that, “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.” In the applicant’s case, the grade was master
sergeant. The applicant’s application for retirement was processed
correctly. Therefore, they recommend denial of his request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 14 September 1998, for review and response within 30 days.
However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.
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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, 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 28 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair
Mr. Gregory W. DenHerder, Member
Mr. James R. Lonon, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Apr 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP1, dated 17 Jul 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Jul 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 3 Sep 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 4 Sep 98.
DOUGLAS J. HEADY
Panel Chair
Since the applicant had served on active duty in the higher grade of MSgt from 1 June 1993 through 14 December 1997, an advancement grade determination was required and accomplished at the time of applicant’s request for retirement. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, also evaluated the case and indicates the demotion action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence there were...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01299 INDEX NUMBER: 131.01;111.01;107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Overseas Duty History on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the CY99A (8 Mar 99) Major Selection Board be corrected to show his service in Germany from Aug 93 through Aug 96; the duty status code effective date for his assignment as Director of Resource Management, Medical...
The applicant states personnel at the Military Personnel Flight erroneously completed an AF Form 964 and updated this data (MPF) at which indichted he refbsed to get retainability for a PCS to the CONUS. Further, he states that he visited the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) on 12 Sep 97 where he was “promoted” to SSgt in an impromptu ceremony. Recommend the applicant’s record be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to staff sergeant effective and with DOR of 1 Sep 97.
The following are documented omissions from his personnel records and Officer Selection Brief (OSB) at the time of the CY98B lieutenant colonel board: 1) Overseas Long Tour at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany: Jan 84- Jan 87. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Reports & Queries Section, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, states, with respect to the applicant’s duty history, that they have reviewed the applicant’s source document Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and AF Forms...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00912
He had completed a total of 2 years, 3 months and 7 days of service at the time of his discharge from the Army National Guard. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that his pay date of 5 November 1982 must have been the date the Base CBPO was going on when he was told to attend a meeting on the SSB/VSI...
He had completed a total of 2 years, 3 months and 7 days of service at the time of his discharge from the Army National Guard. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that his pay date of 5 November 1982 must have been the date the Base CBPO was going on when he was told to attend a meeting on the SSB/VSI...
At the time of his selection for crossflow into the E-4B training and subsequent PCS to Of futt , his assignment action officer, Major "C" , noted in the assignment worksheet trailer remarks section, 'Compute ADSC IAW AFI 36-2107, T1.9, R1 for PCS and T1.5, R1 for training. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the ADSC was clearly noted on the assignment notification message and, in the absence of an AF Form 63, that message served as the source document for the officer's acknowledgment...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2005-00161
In the commander’s statement of support, he attests to the applicant’s efforts to review and make appropriate changes to his records prior to the selection board and that the incomplete changes occurred after the correction attempts. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency AFBCMR BC-2005-00161 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552,...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends that the application be denied. First, prior to his entry into AFIT in 1995, the applicant states, “I was informed that I would return for a tour of no more than 3 years to Air Command and Staff College and that my actual ADSC would be determined upon completion of my degree.” They believe the applicant is referring to the standard tour length associated with his follow-on...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02470 INDEX CODE 128.02 COUNSEL: No HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His permanent change of station (PCS) order be amended to reflect approval for early relocation of his dependents and authorize payment of overseas station allowances. ...