RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03302
INDEX CODE: 135.00
COUNSEL: ROBERT T. SUMMA
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated to the Missouri Air National Guard (MO ANG) in the
grade of major, with a retroactive promotion date of May 1997; or in
the alternative, his name be placed on the retired Reserve list, with
a credit of six (6) points per month for every month subsequent to his
November 1996 discharge; and, all back pay and allowances due from
November 1996 to present.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
AFI 36-2005 requires only that individuals complete their
baccalaureate degree by the end of their seventh (7th) year of
commissioned service. His discharge from Federal service was in
disregard of AFI 36-2005 and in violation of his due process rights.
His discharge from Federal service was a gross abuse of discretion on
the part of the command.
In support of his request, counsel submits a Brief with additional
documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions. These
documents are appended at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former enlisted member of the Air National Guard
and Reserve of the Air Force. On 5 November 1987, he was appointed a
second lieutenant in the MO ANG, Reserve of the Air Force. He was
progressively promoted to the Reserve grade of captain, with an
effective date of 25 May 1993.
Effective 18 November 1996, the applicant was relieved from his
assignment with the MO ANG and honorably discharged, in the grade of
captain, from the MO ANG and as a Reserve of the Air Force under the
provisions of AFI 36-3309 (failure to complete education
requirements).
Information extracted from the applicant’s ANG/USAFR Point Credit
Summary indicates that, as of 18 January 1997, the applicant has
accumulated a total of 17 years, 5 months and 26 days of satisfactory
years of Federal service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, recommended the application be
denied. DPPU stated that in reviewing the documentation provided by
the Missouri Air National Guard (MO ANG), it was noted that the
applicant never officially graduated until a full year and a half
after proof of graduation was required. Although the course work was
complete, the applicant delayed his graduation in order to improve his
grade point average for admittance into graduate school. The
applicant acknowledged understanding that failure to obtain a degree
would result in separation and withdrawal of Federal recognition.
DPPU indicated that acceptable proof of a completed degree requires an
official transcript from the accredited institution. In Aug 95, the
applicant was accepted into the graduate program as a non-degree
student, further proof that he still did not possess a degree at that
time. As a result, the applicant was separated from the MO ANG and
Federal recognition was withdrawn by the National Guard Bureau (NGB).
DPPU stated that at any time after being awarded his degree, the
applicant could have reapplied for appointment as a prior service
member (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to counsel on 5 April
1999 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (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. 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
appropriate Air Force office and adopt their rationale as the basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. Therefore, absent sufficient evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 24 August 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 9 Mar 99, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Apr 99.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00584 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 100.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears the applicant is requesting that his elimination from the Fixed- Wing Qualification Training Course (F-V5A-Q) be removed from his records. On 18 Nov 92, the XXst Flying Training Wing (FTW) commander concurred with the FEB’s findings and recommendations that the applicant should be...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-03270 COUNSEL: Steven E. McCullough HEARING DESIRED: No JUL 3 1 )898: APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT : He be awarded compensation for back pay and retirement points (based on an average of the three previous calendar years) for the period 3 1 December 1994 through 1 November 1996; promoted to the grade of colonel; and reinstated to the same or similar flying position and duties he had before...
STATEMENT OF FACTS: The 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. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Personnel Operations Branch, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the application and states that in accordance with ANGI 36-2607, paragraph 5.1, once a member signs a six-year commitment, he or she at that point have ten years to use the benefits of the Montgomery GI Bill...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98- 00468 COUNSEL : NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her grade at the time she enlisted in the Air National Guard be changed to Airman. Her request was denied because the college transcript from the college was dated 20 January 1998, which is after her date of enlistment. However, she has provided a copy of her college transcript and at the time of her enlistment she...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Personnel Operations Branch, ANG/DPFO, reviewed the additional information submitted and indicated that they are unable to administratively correct the applicant’s military records. The applicant has produced a number of supportive statements from high-level ANG and Air Force officers who support his request. Exhibit G. Letter, ANG/DPFO, dated 4 Aug 00.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01062 INDEX CODE 135.02 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade of E-7 be restored and he be awarded 13 additional points for the period 30 July 1996 to 29 July 1997 for a satisfactory year of Federal service, credited for 12 years, 4 months, and 19 days of prior active Federal...
Subsequent to this time, the applicant has earned sufficient points to be credited with a satisfactory year of Federal service for the R/R year 30 Apr 98 to 29 Apr 99. DP indicated that in accordance with the governing Air Force manual, a year of satisfactory Federal service for retirement is awarded when a member earns a minimum of 50 points in their full R/R year. After a careful review of the evidence of record, we note that, except for the retirement/retention period in question, the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01062
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01062 INDEX CODE 135.02 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade of E-7 be restored and he be awarded 13 additional points for the period 30 July 1996 to 29 July 1997 for a satisfactory year of Federal service, credited for 12 years, 4 months, and 19 days of prior active Federal...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-03288
Available records reflect that the applicant received a Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 10 June 1994, from the Commander, Headquarters Texas Air National Guard. They recommend the applicant’s records be changed to show constructive participation as a Reserve Officer for the period of time following separation from the Texas Air National Guard through the Mandatory Separation Date. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are persuaded that the...
Available records reflect that the applicant received a Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 10 June 1994, from the Commander, Headquarters Texas Air National Guard. They recommend the applicant’s records be changed to show constructive participation as a Reserve Officer for the period of time following separation from the Texas Air National Guard through the Mandatory Separation Date. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are persuaded that the...