Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-00427A
Original file (BC-1997-00427A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                                 ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-00427
            INDEX CODE:  131.05

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 11 Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s  request  to
change his DOR to 9 Jun 94 (Exhibit E).

On 20 Aug 98, the applicant faxed  additional  information  indicating
this information should help his case (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional  information
from the applicant and indicated that after careful  consideration  of
the  additional  documentation,  the  applicant   has   not   provided
sufficient  evidence  of  error  or  injustice.   In  accordance  with
National Guard Regulation (NGR) (AF) 36-4, the applicant was  eligible
for position vacancy promotion on or  after  9 Jun  96.   The  Officer
Promotion Request that  was  submitted  by  the  166th  Air  Refueling
Squadron (ARS) to the 121st Mission Support Flight (MSF) was  undated.
It is further noted that the Commander, 166th  ARS  Memorandum,  dated
23 Apr 96, indicated that applicant “completed the prescribed  minimum
creditable promotion service on 9 Jun 96.”  It appears  the  commander
submitted  the  applicant’s  promotion  prior   to   meeting   minimum
requirements.  Based on this  early  submission,  the  121st  MSF  was
unable to schedule a Federal Recognition Review Board and  it  appears
the applicant’s promotion was held  until  the  first  scheduled  Unit
Training Assembly (UTA) after 9 Jun 96.

Based on the above information and the lack of  additional  supporting
documentation, DPPU recommends denial of relief.  Further, the Federal
Recognition Examining Board, which convened on 1 Aug 96, was within  a
reasonable period of time and was within regulatory procedures of  NGR
(AF) 36-4 and NGR (AF) 36-3.

A complete copy of the additional Air Force evaluation is attached  at
Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
applicant on 28 Jan 99 for review and response.  As of this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  We have reviewed the entire
application  and  the  additional  documentation   provided   by   the
applicant.  However, we are unpersuaded that a revision of the earlier
determination in this case is warranted.  We are  not  convinced  that
the applicant’s contentions override  the  comments  provided  by  the
Chief, Utilization, dated 16 Dec 98, in  which  she  states  that  the
Officer Promotion Request that was submitted by the 166th ARS  to  the
121st MSF was undated and that the Commander,  166th  ARS  memorandum,
dated 23 Apr 96, indicated that applicant  “completed  the  prescribed
minimum creditable promotion service on 9 Jun 96” and that it  appears
that the  commander  submitted  the  applicant’s  promotion  prior  to
meeting minimum requirements.   The  Chief  further  states  that  the
Federal Recognition Examining Board that  convened  on  1 Aug  96  was
within  a  reasonable  period  of  time  and  was  within   regulatory
procedures of NGR (AF) 36-4 and NGR (AF) 36-3.  In view of  the  above
and in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we  agree  with  the
recommendation of the Air Force ANG and adopt the rationale  expressed
as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden that he has suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Therefore, we again find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 1 July 1999, under the provisions  of  Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Sophie Clark, Member
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit E.  ROP, dated 17 Dec 97, w/atchs.
     Exhibit F.  Fax material fr applicant, dated 20 Aug 98,
                   w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 16 Dec 98.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Jan 99.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9700427A

    Original file (9700427A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 11 Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to 9 Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9700427

    Original file (9700427.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not provided sufficient...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900815

    Original file (9900815.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    If the Board grants the request, the cost of premiums should be deducted from payments. He provided documentation that clearly indicates the Ready Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Program was established by Congress to provide coverage for Reservists who have been issued an order to involuntary active duty for covered service under the authority of Title 10, USC, Section 12304. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802595

    Original file (9802595.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    She enlisted on 11 Jun 98 and the college transcript is dated after the fact. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 14 Dec 98 for review and response. WAYNE R. GRACIE Panel Chair INDEX CODE: 131.05 AFBCMR 98-02595 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 9800833

    Original file (9800833.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00833 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant, Air National Guard, be changed from 1 Sep 96 to 1 May 83, which would allow him to be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant effective 15 Nov 97. However, when he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03576

    Original file (BC-2002-03576.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPP states that since the applicant never enlisted with the --- ANG or any other ANG unit she cannot be re-instated. DPPRSR states that the PALACE CHASE program requires the member to sign a contract in which the member agrees to serve two times whatever is currently owed to the Air Force in an Air Reserve Component unit. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Apr 03.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800545

    Original file (9800545.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 2 AFBCMR 98-00545 APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 March 1998 for review and comment within 30 days. Essentially, applicant contends that as a result of errors in his records, the Calendar Year 1997 (CY97) Central Lieutenant Colonel Board was given an inaccurate impression of his record; however, after reviewing the evidence of record, we are...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900943

    Original file (9900943.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the ANG/DPPU evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter, dated 14 Jul 00, counsel provided a response amending the requested relief, which is attached at Exhibit G. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the findings of a DOD IG Investigation, which concluded that the applicant’s removal from his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803418

    Original file (9803418.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    We note that the duty history portion of the CY98 officer selection brief (OSB) correctly indicated the applicant’s duty location as CENTCOM, therefore, the information was available for the promotion board’s review. Additionally, while the citation for the JSAM was not in applicant’s officer selection record (OSR) when the promotion board convened, we note it was listed on the CY98 OSB and a discrepancy report was filed in the OSR; therefore, we must presume the promotion board members had...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9603112

    Original file (9603112.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states the information provided by ARPC/DPAR is incorrect or does not apply to him because he was not a member of the Ready Reserves and his name was not removed from the recommended promotion list since his retirement orders show that he has the permanent Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel. A complete copy of applicant's response is at Exhibit F. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...