RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00692
INDEX CODE 121.02
XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: No
XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Thirty days of leave be restored.
_________________________________________________________________
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:
On 29 Feb 00, the applicant received payment for 60 days of leave, the
maximum authorized under Title 37, Section 501. He retired in the
grade of lieutenant colonel for length of service on 1 Mar 00 with 28
years and 28 days of active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are contained in the official
documents at Exhibit A and in the letters prepared by the appropriate
offices of the Air Force at Exhibit C. Accordingly, there is no need
to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Field Operations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPSFM, reviewed the appeal
and provided his rationale for recommending approval. The Chief
deferred to HQ AFPC/DPPRR regarding changing the applicant’s
retirement date to 1 Apr 00.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Special Programs Section, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, also evaluated the case
and recommended against extending the applicant’s retirement date
because there are no provisions of law that permit extending a Regular
officer’s mandatory retirement date, other than specific reasons/laws
listed in the evaluation.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
19 May 00 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice to warrant relief. The
Dean of the Faculty supported restoring 30 days of leave because the
organizational leave policy and a short notice deployment did not
allow the applicant to use the leave. We agree. However, since the
applicant received payment for 60 days of leave, we are precluded by
Title 37, Section 501, from granting the applicant’s request as
stated. We considered extending his mandatory retirement date for one
month under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section
637. However, the retired pay he received and any civilian wages he
may have earned during that period would offset the dollar amount of
the 30 days of leave, thereby reducing the immediate “value” of the
relief given. More importantly, we did not feel this remedy to be in
the best fiscal interests of the Air Force. In this regard, extending
the applicant’s retirement date by one month would credit him for time
not served and would essentially result in a windfall of increased
retired pay for the rest of his life--the total of which could
ultimately exceed the monetary value of the lost 30 days. Therefore,
in an effort to afford the applicant full, yet fair, relief for the
loss of 30 days of leave we have resorted to a “creative” form of
records correction. Pursuant to our request, the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS-DE) computed the amount of money the
applicant would receive for a fictitious temporary duty equating to
the dollar value of 30 days’ leave at his grade and rank. This form of
correction would afford the applicant full and fair compensation
without the adverse effect of either offset or windfall. In view of
the above, we recommend the applicant be afforded relief by correcting
his records as indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was in temporary
duty status at Hanscom AFB, MA, for 19.5 days beginning on 1 February
2000.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 10 October 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Feb 00, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFM, dated 30 Mar 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 10 May 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 May 00.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-00692
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 XXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that he was in
temporary duty status at Hanscom AFB, MA, for 19.5 days beginning on 1
February 2000.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 5 October 2000, for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E). At the time he applied for retirement in May 1999, to be effective 1 June 2000, his medical condition had not yet been diagnosed. In view of the above, we recommend that the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Field Operations Branch, AFPC/DPSFM, reviewed the application and states that in accordance with Title 10 USC 701, members cannot sell more than a cumulative total of 60 days leave during a military career. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
He was unable to exhaust his leave prior to his date of retirement. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRP recommends the application be approved. In view of the above, we recommend that the applicant be afforded relief by correcting his record as indicated below.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02792
The DPSFM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRRP recommends approval based on the fact that he sold back 28 days of leave based on information provided to him by his Financial Service Office. Since applicant had requested a retirement date of 1 Sep 02, we do not believe that a change in his retirement is warranted. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2003-02792 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02107
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Because he applied for a Stop Loss waiver that was approved, he did not have enough time before his retirement date to use 10 remaining days of leave on his account. DPPRRP notes that the applicant only had 2 days from his Stop Loss waiver approval to his effective retirement date but states that the applicant had the opportunity to extend his retirement effective date up to 30 days and neglected to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03490
DPSFM states that the Master Military Pay Account should be corrected to reflect 29 days, the combined periods of convalescent leave, as lost leave after the applicant retired. Since the applicant has already been paid for 60 days of leave, DPSFM recommends that his retirement date be adjusted by 29 days, for the period of lost leave. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02642
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02642 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given constructive credit for eight months of service and allowed to retire from the Air Force. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02738
The applicant’s complete review is at Exhibit F. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/JA states they cannot support the applicant's request that he be given a full 30-year retirement in the grade of colonel given that he only served 22 years of actual active duty time. HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit H. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL...
INDEX CODE: 121.03 AFBCMR 00-02806 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in...
In the applicant's case, he waited almost 7 years after he states he discovered the alleged error or injustice before he filed a claim, although the applicant knew when he applied for retirement in 3 Oct 67, the highest grade he held on active duty was master sergeant (MSgt). Therefore, based on the rationale provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit C). In the applicant's case, the grade is MSgt (Exhibit D).