RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02334
INDEX NUMBER: 102.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His declination of the opportunity to apply for a Regular Air Force
(RegAF) commission, signed by him on 19 December 1998, be voided and
that he be afforded the opportunity to apply for a RegAF appointment.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During his assignment with the Navy, he had limited contacts with the
Air Force on medical corps issues. His naval commanding officer did
not brief him on the program during his assignment with the Navy. The
paperwork was forwarded to him from an unknown source well past the
deadline to apply for the program and he did not realize that it was a
limited time “open season” event. He was under the impression that he
could continue serving on active duty on “yearly” contracts. He did
not receive an explanation of the program and the consequences of his
declination until he inquired about the program 18 months later, prior
to his permanent change of station (PCS) back to the Air Force.
He understands that the intent of the “open season” for regular
commissions was to allow certain active duty members the opportunity
to apply for an Air Force regular commission. The program was for
members who had not been offered the program in the past. He learned
that the member’s commanding officer was to brief the individual on
this limited event. Apparently, the program was directed
independently of the military personnel flights (MPF). He believes
that during his assignment at the Naval Operational Medicine
Institute, these issues were not adequately addressed and he was not
informed of the program by his commanding officer prior to signing the
declination statement. He did not receive the memorandum from
Randolph AFB, nor did he receive any written explanation or
information about the program.
The Navy assignment was a newly developed position and he was the
first ever Air Force officer and aeromedical specialist assigned to
that naval organization. His MPF was a detachment from Tyndall AFB
located on another Navy base in the Pensacola area. No other Air
Force officer had the same reporting chain as he. His reporting chain
and Air Force connectivity were confusing and complicated throughout
his tenure with the Navy.
He does not believe he had enough information to adequately assess the
significance of this “open season” event and signed in error. His
experience as an aerospace medicine specialist, family practice
physician and operationally-experienced officer was a benefit to the
Air Force and established a new relationship with our counterparts in
the Navy. The Air Force is currently undergoing a gradual loss of
personnel and he believes he can be of continued service.
In support, he provides a supporting statement from his former
commander at the Naval Operational Medicine Institute; a copy of his
declination statement, dated 19 December 1998; and a copy of the
memorandum from HQ AFPC/DPAMF concerning the RegAF application open
season, dated 15 October 1998, without attachments.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
colonel, having been promoted to that grade, effective 23 June 1997.
He has an established date of separation (DOS) of 31 August 2002.
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. Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The Medical Service Officer Management Division, AFPC/DPMAF2,
recommended denial, stating that on 15 October 1998, the initial
memorandum was mailed to all medical group commanders. On 4 December
1998, HQ AFPC/DPAM e-mailed to the MAJCOMs/Staff Agencies a list of
individuals whose “Statement of Intent” forms/Application Sheets had
not been received by the 1 December 1998 suspense date. The suspense
date was changed from 1 December 1998 to 31 December 1998, to ensure
all eligible MC/DC officers had the opportunity to accept or decline a
RegAF appointment. HQ AFPC/DPAM was the approval authority for the
process. The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPPOC,
recommended denial. The RegAF Appointment Statement of Intent, signed
by the applicant, clearly advised him that the RegAF appointment offer
would only be made with promotion selection to lieutenant colonel and
colonel. Therefore, since he was already in the grade of colonel, he
would not be afforded another opportunity to apply. Further, the
statement he signed provided a point of contact and referenced the
appropriate messages, which announced changes to the existing RegAF
appointment program. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
27 October 2000, for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E).
The applicant provided additional information to support his claim
that he was not given full and complete information on the “open
season” event at the time he signed the declination letter for a RegAF
appointment. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is
at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a careful and
thorough examination of the documentation submitted with this case,
there is a reasonable doubt that the applicant had sufficient
information at the time he signed the Statement of Intent to make an
informed decision with regard to a RegAF appointment. Moreover, his
supervising officials provided statements attesting to their failure
to properly counsel the applicant and stated they have no recollection
of ever providing him with the requisite program information.
Therefore, in the best interests of both the Air Force and the
applicant, we recommend his records be corrected 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:
a. Competent authority approved his request for a Regular Air
Force appointment as an exception to policy and action be initiated to
obtain Senate confirmation.
b. Upon Senate confirmation, he be tendered a Regular Air Force
appointment.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 30 November 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Mr. William E. Edwards, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 2000, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPMAF2, dated 26 Sep 2000, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPOC, dated 4 Oct 2000.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Oct 2000.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Nov 2000, w/atchs.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-02334
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, be corrected to show that:
a. Competent authority approved his request for a Regular
Air Force appointment as an exception to policy and action be
initiated to obtain Senate confirmation.
b. Upon Senate confirmation, he be tendered a Regular Air
Force appointment.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
Based on their findings and the evidence provided by the applicant, DPPPOC believes that there were miscommunications among the personnel at applicant’s ROTC Detachment. Also, the opportunity exists for him to receive a RegAF Appointment if selected for promotion to major and his record reflects his ROTC DG status. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response to the...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-02045 September 10, 1998 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: records of the Department of the Air Force relating to e corrected to show that: a. w/Atch Ltr, HQ AFPC/DPAMP, dtd Aug 11, U V / U ~ /...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04205
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After separating from the Air Force Medical Service in Jul 2010, he agreed to return to active duty only after being promised by the Air Force Recruiting Service (AFRS) that he would re-enter at the grade of Lt Col. In Mar 2011, AFPC determined he earned enough credit to appoint as a Lt Col, and AFRS nominated him for appointment as a Lt Col. He was informed the senate confirmation as a Lt Col was...
Members of the Board Mr. Jackson Hauslein, Ms. Marilyn Thomas, and Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson considered this application on 16 January 2002. JACKSON HAUSLEIN Panel Chair Attachments: Ltr, AFPC/DPMAF2, dtd 27 Nov 01 Ltr, AFPC/DPPPOC, dtd 19 Dec 01 AFBCMR 01-03286 INDEX CODE: 102.00 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the...
APPLICANT CONTENDS T H A T : His follow-on assignment from Air War College (AWC) as a Flight Surgeon is well below his qualification and is an act of reprisal - The applicant states that he is an Aerospace Medicine (physician) specialist. He is now appealing to the AFBCMR, because he was given a 4-hour notice that he would be placed on assignment since he had not been selected for any Squadron Commander j o b s he had volunteered for. After reviewing the evidence submitted, the Board found...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01276
AFPC/DPAMF2 noted that the applicant further cited a fifty-seven year old accession that he is aware of who had completed two years of active duty, separated, and was to return as a lieutenant colonel in Fiscal Year 2002 (FY02). A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPOC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPRRP reviewed this application and indicated that the United States Code (USC), Title 10, Section 8911, provides that the Secretary of the Air Force may, upon the officer’s...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01961
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 24 Aug 98 for review and response. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be given the requested relief. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPOC, dated 31 Jul 98.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 24 Aug 98 for review and response. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be given the requested relief. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPOC, dated 31 Jul 98.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 88-02168A
A complete copy of the DPMAJA evaluation is at Exhibit L. The Officer Appointment/Selective Continuation Section, AFMPC/DPPPOC, reviewed the submissions and recommended denial of the applicant's request that a statement be placed in his OSR reflecting he was not eligible for the CY86 Regular Air Force (RegAF) Appointment Board. A complete copy of the DPPPOC evaluation is at Exhibit M. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02242
Public Law (PL) 101-689 was established to allow those servicemembers who entered active duty from 1 July 1985 through 30 June 1988, who declined participation in the MGIB upon entry on active duty, another opportunity to enroll during the open period. The evidence of record indicates the applicant was afforded the opportunity to enroll in the MGIB in 1985 and again in 1989 and declined participation on both occasions. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, and in the absence of...