RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01170
INDEX CODE 102.01
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His [active] commission date be changed from 2 Jul 93 to 29 Jun 93.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was a prior enlisted staff sergeant and received a direct
commission after graduating from the Physician Assistant (PA) school
in Jun 93. His wife lives in Florida and his request for a
humanitarian assignment to care for her after back surgery was turned
down. Changing the commission date will allow him to retire earlier so
she can have the surgery and he can care for her. His present
commission date would delay his retirement by a month since members
have to retire on the first of each month.
A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty (EAD) on 16 Jun 80, completed Phase
II of the PA program at XXXX AFB in 93, was discharged in the grade of
staff sergeant on 28 Jun 93 and, on that same date, took the oath of
office for appointment as a second lieutenant in the Air Force
Reserves. Therefore, his total federal commissioned service date
(TFCSD) is 28 Jun 93.
His extended active duty order, dated 14 Apr 93, indicated his
effective date of duty at XXXX XXX XX, was on or after 29 Jun 93 but
not later than 21 Jul 93. His departure date from Andrews was 2 Jul
93 and, on that date, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant on
active duty. His total active federal commissioned date (TAFCD) is
reflected as 2 Jul 93. According to the personnel data system (PDS),
he was assigned to XXXX XXX XXX, effective 4 Jul 93. He is currently a
captain (date of rank 30 Jun 97) assigned to XXX AFB as a PA.
The date that determines a member’s eligibility for a 20-year length
of service retirement is the EAD date, or in this case 16 Jun 80.
Therefore, the applicant would qualify for a length of service (LOS)
retirement after 30 Jun 00. However, a member needs 10 years on active
duty as an officer in order to retire for LOS in an officer grade, or
in this case after Jul 03.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Superintendent, Medical Accessions & Personnel Programs, HQ
AFPC/DPAMF2, reviewed this appeal and provided his rationale for
recommending denial. However, the Superintendent notes that the
applicant’s date of separation (DOS) from enlisted status should be
corrected to 1 Jul 93.
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 21 Jul 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that his TAFCD should be changed to 29 Jun 93. His
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions,
in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the
rationale provided by the Air Force. Perhaps the applicant does not
realize that a member’s EAD date is the “start” point for calculating
LOS retirement eligibility. Based on that date alone, he was eligible
to retire on 1 Jul 00. However, if he wishes LOS retirement in an
officer grade, he needs 10 years as an officer based on his total
active federal commissioned date(2 Jul 93). Thus, he would not be
eligible to retire as an officer until 1 Aug 03. Aside from not
demonstrating his 2 Jul 93 TAFCD is in error, the applicant’s
correlation between changing his TAFCD by a matter of days and his
retirement eligibility appears to have no foundation in injustice or
personal urgency. In view of the above, we adopt the rationale
expressed in the HQ AFPC/DPAMF2 advisory opinion and find no
compelling basis for granting the relief sought. However, as pointed
out in the evaluation, the applicant’s DOS from enlisted status should
be 1 Jul 93, rather than 2 Jul 93. This correction will be made
administratively by the office of primary responsibility.
_________________________________________________________________
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 17 October 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 5 Jul 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Jul 00.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
He should have been retired as an LTC under the provisions of the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA). Complete copies of his three DD Form 149s are at Exhibit A. A copy of DPPPRA’s letter is at Exhibit D. In his third application (Exhibit A), dated 28 Aug 00, the applicant again asks that his DD Form 214 reflect “Radiation Veteran/Survivor” and that he be promoted to the grade of LTC under the provisions of DOPMA.
However, the Air Force would only grant half-time for work experience and, because the NCA and ASCP were the only certifying agencies accepted by the Air Force, would only credit her work experience from Aug 93 when she received her certification from the ASCP. The applicant was advised of the CSC computation error and the change in grade and pay. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Sep 99, w/atchs CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-01533 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...
If his EAD time between service dates was calculated on the amount of actual days served, his TAFMSD would be 1 July 1981 and he would be eligible for promotion consideration for the 01E7 cycle. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records and AFI 36-2604, are contained in the letters prepared by the applicant and the appropriate offices of the Air Force. A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachment, is at...
This rule basically states that he didn’t come back on active duty as an officer until he began traveling to his next duty assignment. He didn’t travel until 5 June 1998, and they set his commissioning DOR between the date he separated from enlisted status and the date he began traveling as an officer. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, the majority of the Board is persuaded that the applicant’s commission date of rank should be changed.
The information he received was incorrect; therefore, he was charged 8 days of excess leave (24-31 Oct 00). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSFM recommends the application be approved. The DFAS- POCC/DE evaluation,...
AFBCMR 00-02797 INDEX CODE: 128.09 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: SSAN: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Staff 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 the accompanying Memorandum for the...
These documents are appended at Exhibit A. There is no indication in the applicant’s records that he was recommended for an AFAM for his tour in Korea, and he has not provided any documentation to substantiate his claim. While we note the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) citation provided in support of the applicant’s appeal, no documentary evidence has been presented substantiating to our satisfaction that the recommendation for the requested award was officially placed in military...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03255 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for Senior Service School (SSS) candidacy by the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection (P0599A) Board, which convened on 19 Apr 99. Since the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DP, reviewed this application and noted that the applicant was involuntarily reassigned to Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (HQ ARPC) in May 90. A complete copy of the ARPC/DP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his detailed response, the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01720 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) Active Duty Service Commitment be reduced from 6 July 2003 (four years) to 19 March 2001 (three years from the date of his graduation). As noted by the Air Force, although the statement...