RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00212
INDEX NUMBER: 131.04
XXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His selection for promotion to captain by the CY97D board be
reinstated with an effective date and date of rank of 21 Sep 98.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Air Force Reserve Recruiter he worked with after his selection
for Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) with the Air Force Reserve
miscounseled him regarding the impact of his transfer to the
Reserves on his selection for promotion to Captain.
His decision to separate from active duty on 15 Aug 98 and transfer
to the Air Force Reserves was based on him being told that there
would not be a problem with his promotion to captain on 21 Sep 98.
After he inprocessed to his Reserve unit, he was advised that he
would have to wait three years to be eligible for promotion to
captain.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects that he served on active duty in
the Regular Air Force from 15 Jan 95 to 15 Aug 98, at which time he
was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force
Reserve in the grade of first lieutenant.
Applicant was selected for promotion to captain by the CY97D
Captain Board, which convened on 22 Sep 97. His projected pin on
date was 21 Sep 98; however, he separated from active duty on
15 Aug 98 and transferred to the Reserves.
The Personnel Data System indicates that he is currently serving in
the Air Force Reserve in the grade of first lieutenant.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION
The Chief of Officer Promotion Management, AFPC/DPPPOO, reviewed
this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.
The applicant does not provide any documentation, which indicates
he was miscounseled. Further, the applicant would have had to
remain on active duty more than the five weeks needed to pin on
captain in order to retain the grade. He would have incurred an
active duty service commitment (ADSC) of one year (21 Sep 99).
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Chief of the Promotions Eligibility Division, Reserve of the
Air Force Selection Board Secretariat, AFRC/DPBA, reviewed this
application and confirmed that the applicant was not eligible to
meet the first Captains selection board after he transferred to the
Air Force Reserves on 15 Aug 98. The earliest board the applicant
is eligible to meet is the FY 2001 Board, which will convene in
August 2000. The applicant’s date of rank will be 1 October 2000.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION
The applicant responded to the Air Force advisory done by
AFPC/DPPPOO as follows:
He again gives the name of the recruiter who allegedly miscounseled
him, but still provides no documentation of such.
In regards to the one-year service commitment, he states that it is
highly unlikely his application for PALACE CHASE would have been
denied. He states that his entry into UPT and eventually helping
to alleviate an enormous pilot shortage would definitely suit needs
better than remaining on active duty as an intelligence officer for
the less than six months he had remaining. He contends that even
had he remained to be promoted to Captain, his selection for PALACE
CHASE would have remained in tact and he would have served the one-
year ADSC with the Air Force Reserves.
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.
On 28 Mar 00, the applicant was sent a copy of the AFRC/DPBA
evaluation for review and response within 30 days. As of this
date, a response has not been received.
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 and his contentions are duly noted. However, we do not
find his uncorroborated contentions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently compelling to conclude that he was miscounseled
regarding the impact his transfer to the Reserves would have on his
selection for active duty promotion to the grade of captain.
Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and
adopt its’ rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing the
existence of either an error or an injustice.
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 10 May 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
By a majority vote, the members voted to deny the request. Mrs.
Zook voted to correct the record and did not desire to submit a
minority report.
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPOO, dated 16 Mar 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, ARPC/DPBA, dated 1 Mar 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Mar 99;
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Mar 00.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXX
I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that
applicant had not provided substantial evidence of error or
injustice and recommended the case be denied. I concur with that
finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.
Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be
denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review
Boards Agency
He be released from his PALACE CHASE contract and resignation from the Air Force. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement and other documentation Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, PALACE CHASE, HQ AFPC/DPPRSR, reviewed this application and states that applicant denies knowledge of recoupment action prior to separation; however, on 8 May 1997, he signed a...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Neither her Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) contract nor the AFI states that her Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) ADSC could not be served during an active duty military residency. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL...
After he had completed twenty-seven months, the recruiters were unable to find a position for him for twenty months. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant applied for the Palace Chase program in accordance with AFI 36-3205 and his application was approved with the provisions that he must affiliate with the Air Force Reserves within one (1) year...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01971
He transferred into Palace chase and is performing the exact Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) that he performed for more than six years while on active duty. He served 3 years, 6 months and 27 days in the regular Air Force. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant should be given the relief requested.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04344
According to her MPF, members separated under the FY10/11 FMP received between $20,000 and $22,000 in separation pay. The applicant contends that she should have been provided separation pay as she was separated under the provisionsof the FY10/11 Force Management Program (FY10/11FMP); however, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, we are not convinced she was entitled toseparation pay. ...
He also requests that the Board remove a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) from his record. The acting hospital commander refused to sign his application on the grounds that he was a subject of a command directed investigation. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting his release from his Palace Chase contract and resignation from the Air Force; and the Air Force pay him $2,326.90.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01229 INDEX CODE: 113.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT) Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be reduced from ten (10) years to eight (8) years; and, that the start date of his ADSC be changed from Mar 01 to Jan 99. He was cleared...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant. It would not be in the best interest of the Air Force to give the applicant a date of rank to capthn that is earlier than that of other officers promoted from the CY97B Central Captain...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00537 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: ANTHONY W. WALLUK HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 8 Aug 96, be voided from his records and that any reference to the reprimand be expunged from his records. Counsel indicated that the LOR went away after the applicant was promoted to...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1999-01802
She currently has a DOS of 23 Nov 99. The Chief states that selective continuation of twice nonselected officers was not offered for the Mar 99 Nurse Corps Major promotion board; thus, the applicant has a mandatory DOS. DPPPA notes that the contested TR was part of the applicant’s OSR when she was considered for promotion to major by the CY97D board and the DOS of 23 Nov 99 was reflected on both of her CY97D and CY99A OSBs.