RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02895
INDEX CODE: 121.03
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
A day and a half (1.5) of leave be added to his leave account.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error
and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is
at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Commanders’ Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, reviewed this
appeal and indicates that the applicant’s explanation is not a valid
reason to carry more than 60 days into Fiscal Year 1999 (FY99). When
members schedule leave in late September, they risk losing days if
unable to take leave as planned due to unforeseen circumstances, such
as a short-notice temporary duty (TDY). Therefore, denial is
recommend.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the evaluation and responded by electronic
mailgram (EMail). He elaborates on his particular circumstances
(mission requirements, sorties, weather, etc.) and summarizes that he
made a more than reasonable, good faith, effort to plan and manage his
leave. A series of unique circumstances stacked up to challenge his
best-laid plans.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that relief is warranted. Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and
by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale
provided by the Air Force. We therefore agree with the recommendations
of the Air Force 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. In view of the above
and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we 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 27 July 1999 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Oscar A. Goldfarb, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
Mr. Charlie E. Williams Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Oct 98.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, dated 21 Oct 98
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Nov 98.
Exhibit D. EMail, Applicant, dated 24 Nov 98.
Oscar A. Goldfarb
Panel Chair
--
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-00744 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, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: rtment of the Air Force be corrected to show that on 4 November 1996, but on that date, his enlistment of 5 November 1990 was extended for a period of 61...
They recommend the applicant’s request be denied. A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 December 1998 for review and response within 30 days. Applicant's Officer Selection Record.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, advised that, should the Board set aside the Article 15, the applicant’s DOR and effective date to TSgt would be 1 November 1996 and, based on this DOR, he would be considered for MSgt for the first time in the promotion process cycle 99E7, provided he is otherwise eligible. As for the contested EPR, the first time this report will be considered in the promotion process will be for cycle...
There are currently no provisions of law for officers promoted to the grades of lieutenant colonel and above, who are medically disqualified for worldwide duty, to retire in grade with less than three years satisfactory service. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be retired from the U. S. Air Force Reserve in the higher grade of colonel. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, concurs with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation should be changed. We do believe that the RE code 2C is the correct code assigned at the time of applicant’s separation. OSCAR A. GOLDFARB Panel Chair INDEX CODE: 110 AFBCMR 98-02636 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02002 INDEX CODE: 131 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel, with a corrected Officer Selection Brief (OSB), by special selection board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1998A (CY98A) Central Colonel Selection Board. A copy of the Air Force...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01834 INDEX CODE: 100 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for his separation be changed from “Involuntary discharge: Moral Misconduct or Professional Dereliction: Loss of Professional Status” to “Involuntary Discharge: Secretarial Authority” so that he may serve in the Air...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Special Activities, AFPC/DPPAES, also reviewed this application and indicated that an error was identified regarding applicant’s RE code when he submitted a request for correction of his military records and requested AFPC/DPPRR correct his DD Form 214, Block 10, to reflect an RE code of 2C. It appears that his RE code is now correct based on the facts that existed at the time of his discharge. ...
He be released from his PALACE CHASE contract and resignation from the Air Force. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement and other documentation Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, PALACE CHASE, HQ AFPC/DPPRSR, reviewed this application and states that applicant denies knowledge of recoupment action prior to separation; however, on 8 May 1997, he signed 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). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.