RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01552
INDEX NUMBER: 121.00, 128.14
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Oversea Tour Extension Incentive be changed from the 30-day non-
chargeable leave to the $2,000 lump sum bonus.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She states that she had planned to take leave during her entitlement
period; however, due to unforeseen military changes in the mission, she was
unable to take leave due to a short notice training slot.
She had been in a new career field over a year and was unable to get a
previous training slot due to the high demand of training. She became
pregnant and cancelled her leave because her assignment was to be curtailed
due to the downsizing efforts at Incirlik AB and because there were no
doctors to deliver her baby on base. She was not able to fulfill her
extension obligation so she cancelled her leave. Then, due to
complications in getting the security clearance required for her next duty
assignment, she had to extend again because she could not fly due to
pregnancy.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The NCOIC, AF Overseas Assignment Procedures, AFPC/DPAPP1, reviewed this
application and states that the applicant was not eligible for the $2,000
lump sum payment. The $2,000 option was authorized by Congress in the
fiscal 1998 Defense Authorization Act and authorized by SECAF for AF
members who forecasted their DEROS options 1 October 1997 or later.
Members that forecasted prior to October 1997 would still receive the
$80.00 per month incentive. Based on her original DEROS of 24 November
1997, applicant would have forecasted her DEROS option in January 1997,
therefore, she would have received the $80.00 per month not the $2,000 lump
sum. Therefore, they recommend disapproval of the request for the $2,000
lump sum incentive and approval of the $80.00 per month incentive.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 4 August 2000, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
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. 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 office of
primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our
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 upon which to recommend a favorable action on 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 21 September 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
Mr. William E. Edwards, Member
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 02 Jun 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPP1, dated 21 Jul 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated. 04 Aug 00
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01305
HQ USAF/DPFM’s evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 22 October 2002 for review and response. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPP1, dated 5 June 2002.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04054
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRRP states the applicant’s retirement application was processed under the 7-day option program, which stipulates that service members who are assigned overseas who wish to retire and are eligible for retirement, must request a retirement date which is the first day of the month following DEROS. The applicant when he applied for retirement on 19 December 2000 was ineligible for promotion consideration in accordance with promotion...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01513
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant contends that the technician who initiated her extension paper work at Travis AFB was new to the Reenlistments Office, and improperly figured her reenlistment extension, by telling her she needed 12 months to take her one month past her report not later than date (RNLTD) of 31 Dec 02. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03795
He further indicated that if she needed the money faster, she should find alternate funds and request a cancellation of the REDUX bonus. On 23 August 2002 applicant elected to accept and receive the High-3/REDUX retirement option, which resulted in her receiving a $30,000 lump-sum bonus upon reaching her 15-year point of active service. Once a member makes an election, the choice is irrevocable as stated on the DD Form 2839, CSB Election, Section IV, #12, “…I understand that once the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00950 INDEX CODE: 111.05, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 12 Jul 96 through 11 Jul 97 be removed from her records and she be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. In...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00641
He states that the contract was obviously valid enough to keep him overseas, as he has almost completed his extension year. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After reviewing the complete evidence of record, the Board was persuaded that the applicant signed the form to extend his overseas tour with the belief that he would receive 30 days of nonchargeable leave.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01747
In a 15 Nov 02 letter to the applicant, the Superintendent of the --rd Wing IG with the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) advised that, following an interview, the briefer denied having the conversation with the applicant and asserted she had briefed countless individuals regarding declination statements and was well aware of the ramifications. The handout directed him to the MPF for counsel if his desire was to separate. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02285
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he was notified in late 1999 to early 2000 that he needed to obtain or decline retainability, he informed the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) and signed a letter of intent that he would reenlist in early Jul 00 to receive the most of his SRB as possible. Members must have, obtain retainability, or decline to obtain retainability within 30 days of making their overseas returnee selection. We...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02241 COUNSEL: ANTHONY STEFANSON HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: Applicant is the widow of a former service member, who requests that she receive the remaining annual payments of her deceased spouse's aviation continuation pay (ACP) for 1991 through 1996. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retention Analyst, AFPC/DPAR, states that applicant's counsel incorrectly states that...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01387
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not notified that he was eligible for the CSB until after he served 16 years in the Air Force. The applicant does not provide information whether he inquired to his servicing military personnel flight (MPF) regarding CSB eligibility at anytime in the past two years. GREGORY H. PETKOFF Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-01387 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...