Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803122
Original file (9803122.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NO: 98-03122
                             INDEX CODE121.03
                             COUNSEL: None

                             HEARING DESIRED:

Applicant requests leave compensation for 56 days of down time, 8 days
of missed Federal holidays, and 48 days for missed  weekends  for  his
sacrifice as a member in a permanent change of station  position,  and
in  light  of  new  policies  of  time  off  after  long  deployments.
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.  Military  personnel   are
provided 30 days of leave each fiscal year, with provisions  to  carry
over up to 60 days.  This program is intended, in part, to  compensate
military personnel for missed holidays or  lost  weekends.  There  are
also MAJCOM programs for post-deployment stand-downs, but these do not
apply  to  permanently  assigned  personnel   supporting   contingency
operations. Although the applicant believes that something  additional
should be done for personnel permanently assigned  to  very  demanding
tours, it is not a function of the AFBCMR to set leave policy for  the
Air Force. 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, Ms. Peggy  E.  Gordon,  and
Mr. Joseph A. Roj considered this  application  on  4  March  1999  in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction  36-2603,  and
the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.




                                       Panel Chair

Exhibits:
A.  Applicant's DD Form 149
B.  Advisory Opinion
C.  AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
D.  Applicant's Response

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02018

    Original file (BC-2001-02018.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02018 INDEX CODE: 136.00 COUNSEL: ANTHONY W. WALLUK HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to show she was not discharged with severance pay but was permanently retired because of physical disability with a minimal combined compensable rating of 50% but more appropriately 70%. A complete...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03035

    Original file (BC-2002-03035.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In fact, it appears that he was not charged for any leave from the time he arrived at his new duty station until he commenced work, a period of approximately six weeks. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 2 December 2002, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 December 2002.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03035

    Original file (BC-2002-03035.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In fact, it appears that he was not charged for any leave from the time he arrived at his new duty station until he commenced work, a period of approximately six weeks. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 2 December 2002, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 December 2002.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100160

    Original file (0100160.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFBCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied (Exhibit C). Prior to that date, an evaluation of 30% was assigned for severe, frequent attacks. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, I believe the applicant’s medical condition at the time of his retirement warrants a higher disability rating.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01782

    Original file (BC 2013 01782.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Exhibit C) ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial. The AFI does not require the commander’s approval for early testing while on the 42-day acclimatization period from deployment. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 13.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800149

    Original file (9800149.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E. 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. On 6 Dec 96, officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01278

    Original file (BC 2014 01278.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K concurs with the recommendation from AFRC/RMG to deny the applicant’s request for pay and points for the period May – Jul 13. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Exhibit D. Letter,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9601729

    Original file (9601729.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C ) . Officials within the office of the Secretary of the Air Force reviewed the case file and directed that the applicant be discharged with severance pay and given a 20 percent compensable rating. The disability laws of Title 10, USC require the military services to rate disabilities based on their current condition, at the time...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03304

    Original file (BC-2011-03304.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She should have been discharged via a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and should have received disability compensation given the severity of her medical conditions. The complete SGPF evaluation is at Exhibit B. NGB/A1PS concurs with the SGPF’s advisory and therefore recommends no action be taken unless the applicant can provide documentation showing her medical conditions were deemed service connected...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802130

    Original file (9802130.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, if the Board voids the Article 15 as requested or removes the reduction as part of the punishment, the effective date and date of rank would revert to the original date of 1 July 1992. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 21 December 1998, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant for review and response within 30 days. ...