ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02529
INDEX CODE: 136.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect that he retired from the Army of
the United States (Air Corps).
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF THE CASE:
The applicant’s records were lost or destroyed. The available
information pertaining to the applicant’s service and the issues under
review are contained in the letter prepared by the Office of the
Director of Personnel Program Management (ARPC/DPAR) (Exhibit C).
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Addendum
to Record of Proceedings.
On 8 Oct 96, the Board recommended that the applicant’s records be
corrected to show that he was tendered and accepted an appointment as
a second lieutenant, Officers’ Reserve Corps, Army of the United
States (Air Corps), which was approved by the Director, Air Force
Review Boards Agency on 19 Feb 97 (Exhibit B).
On 19 Mar 98, the Board considered and denied an application
pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that his records be
corrected to reflect that he retired from the Army of the United
States (Air Corps) (see AFBCMR 97-02529, with Exhibits A through D).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Had he been promoted to the Reserve grade of second lieutenant on 18
Apr 47, as the correction of his records now indicate, he would have
stayed on active duty and retired.
If he had been separated from the service as a second lieutenant in
1947, he would have gone into the Reserves and would have remained in
an active status until he met the eligibility requirements for retired
pay.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement
and extracts from his military personnel records.
A complete copy of the applicant’s request for reconsideration is at
Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. In earlier findings, we determined that there was insufficient
evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding the applicant’s
request that his records be corrected to reflect that he retired from
the Army of the United States (Air Corps). We have reviewed the
applicant’s most recent submission and find it insufficient to warrant
a reversal of our previous determination in this case. The applicant
asserts that had he been promoted to the Reserve grade of second
lieutenant, as the correction of his records now indicate, he would
have stayed on active duty and retired, or, he would have gone into
the Reserves remained in an active status until he was eligible for
retired pay. However, in our view, this is nothing more than
retrospective musings on the applicant’s part. There is no way to
determine for certain at this late day what decision the applicant
would have made regarding his career had he been appointed as a
commissioned officer during the 1946/1947 timeframe. In view of the
above, and in the absence of evidence showing that the applicant had
the requisite years of service to be eligible for retirement, we
adhere to the original decision and conclude that no basis exists to
act favorably on his request.
2. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 5 Jan 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Mr. Robert W. Zook, Member
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. Letter from Congressman, dated 25 May, 99,
w/atchs.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that the AF Form 694 presented as evidence is signed, but she does not recall signing such a form waiving her rights to survivor benefits. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable...
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that the AF Form 694 presented as evidence is signed, but she does not recall signing such a form waiving her rights to survivor benefits. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1992-02824
On 4 May 1997, the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of her husband’s appeal (Exhibit E). As noted in the Board’s earlier findings, the applicant’s case differs from the case of Barber v. United States, in that there is evidence in the record that the required notification letter was sent to the applicant notifying her of the former servicemember’s decision not to participate in the SBP. ...
On 4 May 1997, the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of her husband’s appeal (Exhibit E). As noted in the Board’s earlier findings, the applicant’s case differs from the case of Barber v. United States, in that there is evidence in the record that the required notification letter was sent to the applicant notifying her of the former servicemember’s decision not to participate in the SBP. ...
By letter, dated 2 Nov 96, the applicant was notified that since she had been twice considered and not recommended for promotion, the law required that her active status as an officer in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force be terminated not later than 15 Nov 96. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Promotions Branch,...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-02137
By letter, dated 2 Nov 96, the applicant was notified that since she had been twice considered and not recommended for promotion, the law required that her active status as an officer in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force be terminated not later than 15 Nov 96. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Promotions Branch,...
The AF Form 2096 is changing the applicant's DAFSC to include the ItKtt prefix and changing his duty title to read I1Assistant Operations Officer, both effective 8 May 1997. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 13 April 1998 for review and response within 30 days. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SEP 1 6 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-00847 COUNSEL: NONE C l HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that the citation to accompany the award of the Air Force Commendation Medal, second oak leaf cluster, (AFCM 20LC) be added to his Officer Selection Record (OSR) for review by the CY 97A lieutenant colonel medical/dental corps selection board, which convened on 5 November 1997. The appropriate Air Force office...
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Upon her late husband’s retirement, he completed the SBP Election Certificate and elected Option A to decline to make an election at that time, but to remain eligible to make an election for coverage at age 60. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her late husband’s records should be modified to allow participation in the RCSBP. The following members of the Board considered this application...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02861 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) medal. A crew member bandaged his arms and he completed the mission with no other ill effects. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...