RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00120
INDEX NUMBER: 136.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His retirement date be changed from 1 January 1998 to 31 January 1998.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He performed duty subsequent to his original date of separation. If
his record is not amended to the new separation date, he will be
required to repay the funds he was paid for performing duty, which
will be unjust.
In support of his request, applicant provided a letter from the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Denver Center concerning a debt
in the amount of $476.38 for drills performed on January 10 and 11,
1998, after his separation. (Exhibit A)
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is a former Air National Guard (Medical Service Corps)
officer. On 17 November 1997, he submitted a request for transfer to
the Retired Reserve, to be effective 1 January 1998. On 30 December
1997, he was discharged from the Texas Air National Guard, transferred
to Headquarters, Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) on 31 December
1997, and transferred to the Retired Reserve on 1 January 1998. He is
eligible for retired pay at age 60.
Documentation provided by the applicant indicates that he attended a
Unit Training Assembly (UTA) on 10 and 11 January 1998, which was
subsequent to his separation, for which he received pay in the amount
of $476.38. Since he was not entitled to pay after his separation, he
incurred a debt in the amount of $476.38.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Director of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DPAR, reviewed this
application and recommended denial, stating there is no provision of
law that permits members to perform duty for pay or points after the
effective date of transfer to the Retired Reserve. The applicant’s
military personnel flight (MPF) did not have the authority to
authorize participation for pay or points.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant stated that in early September 1997 he notified his MPF of
his desired retirement date of 1 January 1998. Subsequent to that
notification, he was unable to attend his final UTA in December 1997
due to unforeseen personal circumstances. Because of his absence at
the December 1997 UTA, his commander ordered him to attend the January
1998 UTA. He attended the UTA drill on 10 and 11 January 1998.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.
___________________________________________________________________
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 Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice. In view of the number of years applicant
served as a Reservist, we believe he should have been aware of the
fact that he could not participate for pay and points subsequent to
separation. Furthermore, when he was ordered to attend the UTA in
January 1998, we believe he had a responsibility to advise his
commander that he would be retired prior to the date of the UTA.
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 8 July 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Sophie A. Clark, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 99, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPAR, dated 8 Feb 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Mar 99.
Exhibit E. Letter from Applicant, dated 1 Mar 99.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ OFFICE OF PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION: The Chief, Claims Branch, DFAS-DE/FYCC, advises that review of the applicant’s pay records shows he resigned from the Air Force Reserves with an effective date of August 2, 1996. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Retirement Branch, HQ ARPC/DPAR,...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-01936
_________________________________________________________________ OFFICE OF PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION: The Chief, Claims Branch, DFAS-DE/FYCC, advises that review of the applicant’s pay records shows he resigned from the Air Force Reserves with an effective date of August 2, 1996. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Retirement Branch, HQ ARPC/DPAR,...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03115
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPB recommends denial as the applicant has not provided any evidence that the EPRs are in error and should be removed, and the fact that lack of feedback does not invalidate a report. AFI 36-2406, paragraph 2.3, states a rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document a session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet, does not invalidate any subsequent performance report....
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit D. In a letter dated 20 July 1999, applicant requests reconsideration in light of the supporting statement from the Reserve Advisor to DCS Operations, HQ USAF/XO-ARC. Based on the Reserve Advisor’s supporting statement, it appears that the request for his accelerated promotion to LTC was faxed to ARPC in sufficient time to be processed for the 30 October 1997 DOR. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit...
_________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Upon being asked to comment on applicant’s request that his ACP agreement be effective as of November 1997, HQ AFPC/DPAR states, in part, that current Air Force policy does not allow pilots to get ADSC “credit” for variable length ACP agreements. He has applied Air Force policy guidance consistently to all pilots with incorrect UPT ADSCs who have requested to be eligible for ACP based on the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00452
A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. The Acting Director, Health Services, HQ ARPC/SG, further evaluated the case and indicates that, during the course of his AFRRSP participation, the MIMSO course was changed to Commissioned Officer’s Training, requiring a longer period of time. The applicant has requested that repayment of the AFRRSP stipend be waived. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to reflect that, instead of resigning from the...
A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. The Acting Director, Health Services, HQ ARPC/SG, further evaluated the case and indicates that, during the course of his AFRRSP participation, the MIMSO course was changed to Commissioned Officer’s Training, requiring a longer period of time. The applicant has requested that repayment of the AFRRSP stipend be waived. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to reflect that, instead of resigning from the...
, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97- 02288 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO AUG 1 4 1998 APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His Air Force Reserve time, before he went on active duty, be moved to the end of his active duty in order for his last six (6) years of service be reflected as Air Force Reserve time. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we note that when the applicant was found...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02839
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 1996 she did extra work at home, after hours, supporting an American delegation, but the time was never officially reported on an Air Force (AF) Form 40a, Record of Individual Inactive Duty Training. The applicant received an AF Form 526, ANG/USAFR Point Credit Summary, around 17 May 1997 (approximately 60 days after the end of her R/R year in question). After a thorough review of the evidence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03307
The letter asked that he call and he did so numerous times, but received no answer. He returned to duty with the ANG on 20 November 1984 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 October 1994. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While the applicant appreciates the ANG’s recommendation that his former grade be reinstated, he provides evidence he was within weeks or...