RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03533
INDEX CODE: 131.05
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of commissioning and date of rank be changed to 31 August 1997.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, AFOATS/JA, reviewed the application and
states that if there was an error, it was not an error initiated by the Air
Force (it was initiated by the applicant himself), it was not an erroneous
evaluation that was conducted by or in the control of the Air Force, and
the Air Force legitimately relied upon the results of the evaluation (as
did the applicant) in assessing whether the applicant was medically
qualified for commissioning. Once the applicant took the opportunity to
get a re-evaluation, which concluded that the applicant did in fact have
some problems, although not disqualifying ones, the AFROTC did everything
it could to get the applicant back in AFROTC and get him commissioned.
There is no
doubt that the applicant was commissioned a year later than he would have
been, and now technically has a new peer group, but it was by no fault of
AFROTC or the Air Force. Therefore, they recommend that the applicant
maintain his current DOC/DOR.
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit
C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 22 February 1999, for review and response. 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable injustice warranting changing his date of rank (DOR)
to 31 August 1997. After reviewing the supporting documentation submitted
by the applicant, the Board notes that he was disenrolled from ROTC due to
a erroneous medical diagnosis which disqualified him for service. However,
after being re-evaluated it was determined that the results were not
significant enough to medically disqualify him and he was allowed to re-
enroll in AFROTC. The Board is of the opinion that since he did eventually
graduate from ROTC, his date of rank should be changed to 31 August 1997.
In view of the foregoing, and in an effort to offset any possibility of an
injustice, we recommend the applicant’s record be corrected to the extent
indicated below. The changing of his DOR to the Reserve grade of second
lieutenant will place the applicant back in his year group.
4. While we believe that his DOR should be changed, we do not believe
that his commissioning was delayed due to an error on the part of the Air
Force. We are in agreement with the comments of the Deputy Staff Judge
Advocate. In this regard, we note that it was not error initiated by the
Air Force, it was not an erroneous evaluation that was conducted by or in
the control of the Air Force, and the Air Force legitimately relied upon
the results of the evaluation in assessing whether the applicant was
medically
qualified for commissioning. In addition, it appears that AFROTC did
everything it could to get the applicant back in AFROTC and to get him
commissioned. Therefore, we do not recommend favorable action on
applicant’s request for a change in his commissioning date.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his date of rank to the Reserve
grade of second lieutenant is 31 August 1997.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 12 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFOATS/JA, dated 28 Jan 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Feb 99.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 98-03533
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:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to , be corrected to show that his date of rank to the Reserve
grade of second lieutenant is 31 August 1997.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01951
The Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) also committed a clerical error claiming he had received $525 from an AFROTC scholarship from 1 April 1998 to 15 July 1998. He did receive a copy of the order releasing him from the Air Force Reserves as it was provided as his evidence; therefore, he was fully aware of the SGLI charges. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00334
AFOATS/JA states that the applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to substantiate his request and that it appears that he tried to play the waiting game for his best personal options and in a time crunch chose to accept the HPSP. The applicant did not apply for the educational delay within 90 days of the projected commissioning date; therefore, the detachment commander did not abuse his authority by not accepting the application, advises AFOATS/JA. After a thorough review of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02876
On this same date, his commander approved his request and advised the applicant of the consequences of his request. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states he made a verbal request for a medical waiver or a possible change in degree program. Therefore, after reviewing all the evidence provided, the Board is not persuaded the applicant’s rights were violated, or that he was treated any differently than...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01135
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. AFOATS/JA's complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPAO makes no recommendation regarding the pilot training slot as HQ AFROTC conducted that selection board and is outside the active duty process; however, they would recommend the applicant complete navigator training as she was assessed into the Air Force as a navigator. However, since commissioning, she has obtained waivers to correct her disqualifying...
They note that many trainees in the AFROTC program participate in training (in the applicant’s words, perform cadet duties) without being under contract pursuant to 10 USC 2104 or 2107. Therefore, this orientation period would not have entitled the applicant to Field Training pay in accordance with 37 USC 209 during that time. As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00686
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When she enlisted in the Air Force, she was instructed by the recruiter to list her current residential address as her home of record (HOR). In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a copy of her DD Form 1966/1 Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States, which reflects her current address and her home of record as the same location. We took notice of the applicant's...
c. In reference to the applicant’s third allegation, he does not specify any particular error that was made. Therefore, they recommend that no change be made to applicant’s military records. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2001-00122
On 20 May 97, the applicant was advised in writing of HQ AFROTC’s decision, and notified that he would be required to complete the PFT, 1.5 mile run, and meet weight and body fat standards for commissioning. In regards to the applicant’s allegation that the debt of $77,000 is disproportionate, he states that maintaining body fat standards is a training requirement specified in the AFROTC contract. Counsel also asserts that AFOATS/JA glosses over the fact that when the applicant was weighed...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02408
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states through her grandfather she was medically qualified for a commission in the Air Force, based on the physical examination conduced on 16 January 2004. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Grandfather, undated.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02063
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter, dated 5 Jul 05, the applicant provided documentation regarding verification of his possible entitlements due to the loss of his AFROTC Scholarship, which is attached at Exhibit L. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFOATS/JA indicated that according to the Base Educators Guide, dated 1 Mar 00, to be...