RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01028
INDEX CODE 135.02
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. He be paid for duty he would have performed had he been allowed to
continue serving in the Air National Guard (ANG) until his planned
retirement date of 30 April 1998; i.e., 13 active duty (AD) days, 4
Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs) for April 1998, and 6 Additional
Flying Training Periods (AFTPs) in March and April 1998.
Or, in the alternative, he be reinstated in the Utah ANG in the
grade of colonel for a minimum of 60 days to recoup his lost earnings.
2. He be entitled to the Reserve Transition Assistance Program (RTAP)
benefits. [According to ANG/DPPU, this issue has been resolved and the
applicant will receive RTAP benefits – See Exhibit B.]
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error
and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is
at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was retired with an effective date of 9 March 1998.
A traditional or technician in the Guard is authorized 14 annual
training days, 24 UTAs, and 12 AFTPs per quarter. The applicant
performed twice his annual authorized number of annual training days,
as well as 26 UTAs and 24 AFTPs during Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98).
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are contained in the official
documentation provided by the applicant and 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 NATIONAL GUARD EVALUATION:
The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed this appeal and provided
her rationale for recommending denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24
May 1999 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. We note the applicant’s
request for RTAP benefits has been resolved administratively;
therefore, no action is required of the Board on this issue. As for
the applicant’s remaining requests, after a thorough review of the
evidence of record and his submission, we are not persuaded that
further relief is warranted. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted;
however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the ANG. As explained by the ANG, his earlier separation date does
not appear to be in error or unjust, and the applicant provides
insufficient evidence to refute this. He does not appear to have been
deprived of any opportunity to earn points and pay up to his actual
date of separation, and he has provided no valid basis to justify our
awarding him additional points and pay for service he did not perform
between 9 March 1998 and 30 April 1998, his original release date. As
we find no error or injustice in his earlier separation date,
reinstatement is not warranted, nor is it within our authority without
the concurrence of the State governor. We therefore agree with the
recommendations of the Air National Guard and adopt the rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that, since the applicant has
failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an
injustice, the case should be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
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 1 February 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
Mr. George Franklin, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 29 Apr 99.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, undated (forwarded 24 May 99).
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00833 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant, Air National Guard, be changed from 1 Sep 96 to 1 May 83, which would allow him to be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant effective 15 Nov 97. However, when he...
However, the DOD IG concluded that his allegation of reprisal was not substantiated (Exhibit C). No evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that the findings of the DOD IG were erroneous. Applicant's Master Personnel Records and Exhibit C. DOD IG Report, dated 4 Jun 96 (withdrawn).
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00627
However, the DOD IG concluded that his allegation of reprisal was not substantiated (Exhibit C). No evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that the findings of the DOD IG were erroneous. Applicant's Master Personnel Records and Exhibit C. DOD IG Report, dated 4 Jun 96 (withdrawn).
Applicant explains that he should have received additional constructive service credit for education and experience upon his transfer to the Air National Guard. The Chief states that applicant’s civilian experience from 1 Oct 92 to 16 Jun 94 is not creditable because this was part-time employment; his experience from 16 Jun 94 through his date of appointment in the Air National Guard was duplicated credit since he was already commissioned in the Army National Guard and according to Air...
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not provided sufficient...
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 11 Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to 9 Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-00427A
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 11 Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to 9 Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In letters, dated 16 May and 27 July 2001, the applicant’s Senator provided copies of correspondence provided to him by the applicant and her counsel (Exhibits J and M). In further support of the appeal, counsel submits the 6 August 1982 version of the Air Force regulations governing crew rest and flight duty limitations....
INDEX CODE: 102.04, 136.01, 137.02 AFBCMR 99-00283 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: 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. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, ANG/DPPU, dtd May 28, 1999, w/Atch AFBCMR 99-00283 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
AFBCMR 99-00374 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 Chief of Staff...