Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00627
Original file (BC-1998-00627.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00627
            INDEX CODE:  110.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated in the Air National Guard.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied reenlistment as a result of reprisal, with no avenue  of
appeal (Exhibit A).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Available documentation reflects that the applicant, a  former  member
of the Air National Guard, was released from active duty on 31 Oct 96,
and retired, effective 1 Nov 96, in the grade of master sergeant.   He
was credited with 23 years, 2  months,  and  25 days  of  active  duty
service.

A Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) Report, dated 4 Jun 96,
indicates that the applicant filed a reprisal complaint under  10  USC
1034, alleging that his  Active  Guard  Reserve  (AGR)  tour  was  not
extended as a result of his contacts with an IG.  However, the DOD  IG
concluded that  his  allegation  of  reprisal  was  not  substantiated
(Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Utilization,  ANG/DPPU,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial.  According to DPPU, membership in the Air National
Guard is not an inherent right of any individual.  It is  a  privilege
and confers upon the individual an obligation to serve in  the  active
military service in the event of mobilization or emergency, or at such
time as the national  security  may  require.   In  DPPU’s  view,  the
applicant was treated fairly and equitably and received everything  to
which he was entitled.

A complete copy of the DPPU evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  19
Oct 98 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (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.  The applicant  requests
that the Board invoke the provisions of  10  USC  1034  (Whistleblower
Protection Act) while processing his application.  He alleges that  he
was denied reenlistment as a result of reprisal.  However,  a  DOD  IG
investigation  has  concluded  that  the  applicant’s  allegation   of
reprisal was not substantiated.  No evidence has been presented  which
would lead us to  believe  that  the  findings  of  the  DOD  IG  were
erroneous.  In view of the above, and 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 2 Sep 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
      Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records and
    Exhibit C.  DOD IG Report, dated 4 Jun 96 (withdrawn).
    Exhibit D.  Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 24 Sep 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Oct 98.




                                   TERRY A. YONKERS
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800627

    Original file (9800627.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the DOD IG concluded that his allegation of reprisal was not substantiated (Exhibit C). No evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that the findings of the DOD IG were erroneous. Applicant's Master Personnel Records and Exhibit C. DOD IG Report, dated 4 Jun 96 (withdrawn).

  • 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 0001478

    Original file (0001478.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force and the Department of the Defense Office of the Inspector General (DOD IG) Report of Investigation (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Executive Support Staff Officer, New York Air National Guard (NYANG), DMNA/ANG-ESSO, reviewed this application and recommended denial. The Report of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00685

    Original file (BC-2013-00685.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 Aug 10, the Vice Chief of Joint Staff signed an order amending the applicant’s separation from the ANG and transfer to the Air Force Reserve to reflect his discharge from the WYANG and as a Reserve of the Air Force effective 10 Oct 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, para 2.25.2, ANG Unique Separations. In addition, no one had the authority to discharge the applicant from the Reserve of the Air Force (See SAF/IG Report at Exhibit B). According to AFI 36-3209, “the authority to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-05912

    Original file (BC-2012-05912.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In addition, the Department of Defense Inspector General (IG DoD/MRI) concurred with the determination, approved the report, and substantiated the allegations (Exhibit B). We note that based on the Report of Investigation (ROI) from the SAF/IG the applicant was the victim of reprisal under the Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC 1034) by his former commander who denied his reenlistment and attendance at the Chief Executive Course (CEC). Other than the comments in the ROI, the applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801091A

    Original file (9801091A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Applicant explains that he should have received additional constructive service credit for education and experience upon his transfer to the Air National Guard. The Chief states that applicant’s civilian experience from 1 Oct 92 to 16 Jun 94 is not creditable because this was part-time employment; his experience from 16 Jun 94 through his date of appointment in the Air National Guard was duplicated credit since he was already commissioned in the Army National Guard and according to Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02987

    Original file (BC-2012-02987.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 Jul 11, the DoD/IG office completed their review of the applicant’s reprisal case and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal/abuse of authority. On 19 Jan 12, the DoD/IG completed their review of the applicant’s complaint dated 4 Jul 11, and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal by her former commander. DPSID states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900453

    Original file (9900453.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Available documentation reflects that: On 9 March 1997, the applicant filed a complaint with the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF/IGQ) alleging the squadron commander reprised against him for a protected disclosure by removing him from his lieutenant colonel position in the squadron and reassigning him to a captain’s position in the group. Applicant’s complete statement, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. By letter dated 19 October 1999, applicant provided the results of his request for a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1999-00453

    Original file (BC-1999-00453.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Available documentation reflects that: On 9 March 1997, the applicant filed a complaint with the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF/IGQ) alleging the squadron commander reprised against him for a protected disclosure by removing him from his lieutenant colonel position in the squadron and reassigning him to a captain’s position in the group. Applicant’s complete statement, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. By letter dated 19 October 1999, applicant provided the results of his request for a...