RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00281
INDEX CODE: 136.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show that his Mandatory Separation Date (MSD)
of 1 July 1999 was adjusted for a period of 12 months.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His MSD should be adjusted since his commission in the Washington Air
National Guard (ANG) was delayed.
The applicant states that in May 1978, he auditioned and was qualified to
become a band officer in the ANG. He resigned his Army commission and was
released from the Army Reserve. However, he was not sworn into the
Washington ANG until May 1979.
The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Washington ANG in the grade of
colonel.
The applicant was released from the Army Reserve on 6 June 1977.
On 7 May 1978, the applicant was auditioned and found qualified for the
band officer specialty.
On 26 April 1979, the applicant was approved for appointment as Band
Director in the grade of captain.
The applicant was appointed in the Washington ANG effective 1 May 1979 and
assigned to the 560th Air Force Band.
During the Retention/Retirement Year 6 June 1978 through 5 June 1979, the
applicant was awarded 8 inactive duty training (IDT) points and 15
membership points, for a total of 23 points. The year was not considered a
year of satisfactory Federal service.
The applicant was tendered an indefinite term appointment as a Reserve
officer of the Air Force on 12 June 1979.
During the period 6 June 1978 through 5 June 1979 he was placed in a non-
participation status.
The applicant was placed on the Reserve Retired List on 1 July 1999. He
completed 27 years and 25 days of satisfactory Federal service and will be
eligible for retired pay at age 60.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, has reviewed the application and states
the applicant had one year of non-participation while pending an inter-
service transfer from the Army Reserve to the ANG. ANG/DPPU notes that
during the administrative process to transfer from one component to
another, officers continue to participate in unit training assemblies to
obtain and complete a satisfactory retirement year. ANG/DPPU opines that
recommending relief would set a precedence for all inter-service transfers.
The applicant also requests his MSD be extended for a period of 12-months
based on the hiring of his successor; however, there are no statutory
provisions to allow an extension of a MSD for line officers. Therefore,
they recommend denial of the applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that when he
submitted the transfer request to his Army Reserve unit, he was required to
turn over his command and clear the unit. Contrary to the advisory
opinion, there was no opportunity to complete a satisfactory retirement
year. While he understands the desire not to set a precedence for future
transfers, it is incumbent upon the services to provide reasonable support
to those making the transition.
The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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 and adopt
their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 30 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Edward C. Koenig, Member
Mr. Gregory W. Den Herder, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Dec 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 11 May 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Jun 99.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Jun 99.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
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...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD), Total Years Service Date (TYSD), Pay Date, and Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) are in error. With his five years in the active Air Force, he had almost eighteen years of military service when he was informed in Jan 00, that he would be discharged immediately. There was no evidence that the applicant was informed by ARPC of the implications of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00270
He has 22 years of satisfactory service towards a Reserve retirement. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While he is aware of the Air Force policy of including periods of inactive duty in service calculations, he feels the application of this policy in his unusual case is unfair, as it will force him to retire prior to truly serving his full complement of 28 years and prevent him from competing for promotion. ...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03439
A member’s Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) is established from their Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) in accordance with Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 14507, which requires that a Line-of- the Air Force colonel, not selected for promotion to the grade of brigadier general, be separated not later than the first day of the month following completion of 30-years commissioned service. Although applicant contends he had a break in service from November 1982 to...
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...
R Cfiief Examiner Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D. C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-0 18 14 S E $ 0 4 1998 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale the victim of either an error or an 2603, the applicant's records will the Chief of Staff signed by 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...
His MSD was adjusted to 1 Apr 99, which is the first day of the seventh month after the month in which the President approved the report of the board that considered the officer for the second time. The compound effect of that guidance and his decisions based on that guidance has left him in a position of being forced to leave the service after 17 years, 8 months, and 13 days of satisfactory service. The applicant was notified that, due to his second deferral, he must be discharged, as...