RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01188
INDEX NUMBER: 121.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Fifteen (15) days of leave be restored.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He reenlisted on 25 January 1999 (a prior service returnee) and was
instructed to report to duty not later than (NLT) 15 February 1999.
He was charged 15 days of leave for the period 25 January through
9 February 1999.
Applicant’s request and a copy of his orders are at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 25 January 1999, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for
a period of four years. His orders directed that he report to his
unit NLT 15 February 1999. He was authorized travel by privately
owned conveyance with one (1) day of travel time permitted. He was
also authorized 15 days’ delay enroute chargeable to leave
(DDALVP).
AFPC/DPSFC stated that finance charged the applicant 15 days of
leave after allowing for one day to travel from his home to his
duty station.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Commander’s Programs Branch, AFPC/DPSFC, reviewed this
application and recommended denial, stating, in part, that the
applicant has failed to provide documentation to refute finance
charging leave after allowing for one day to travel.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 3 September 1999 for review and comment 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.
Applicant contends that after reenlisting on 25 January 1999, he
was instructed to report to duty not later than 15 February 1999.
However, when he reported for duty on 9 February 1999, he was
charged 15 days of leave. After reviewing the evidence provided,
we note that the applicant’s enlistment orders reflect that he was
authorized 15 days delay enroute chargeable to leave (DDALVP).
Based on this information, we are not persuaded that he was
improperly charged leave for the period in question. Following his
enlistment, the applicant was required to either be in an
authorized leave status or in a duty status. In view of the
foregoing, and in the absence of evidence showing that the
applicant was authorized to be absent without charge to leave, we
find no basis upon which to favorably consider his request.
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 8 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Apr 99, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSFC, dated 13 Aug 99, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Sep 99.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: Nup 1 6 79913 DOCKET NUMBER: 9 7 - 0 3 2 3 0 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected by restoring 27 days of leave. The course graduation date was 28 March 1997 and his report not later than date (RNLTD) to his new duty station, was 30 April 1997. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Dec 97. d&L/kdu/y VAU HN E. SCHLUN Panel Chair 3 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00960 INDEX CODE 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reconsidered for Intermediate Service School (ISS) candidacy by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) Major Central Selection Board with the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 3 April 1998 included in his selection folder, and the CY98B Officer Selection Brief...
If his EAD time between service dates was calculated on the amount of actual days served, his TAFMSD would be 1 July 1981 and he would be eligible for promotion consideration for the 01E7 cycle. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records and AFI 36-2604, are contained in the letters prepared by the applicant and the appropriate offices of the Air Force. A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachment, is at...
AFI 36-2107 clearly states an ADSC is incurred when training is complete. Had the applicant completed training 22 days early, his ADSC would have reflected his actual graduation date and not the “planned” date. Exhibit B.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00837 INDEX CODE 100.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Military records be changed to reflect the current legal name and gender of “?? A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Records Procedures Branch, HQ AFPC/DPSRP, reviewed the case and provided two letters to the applicant, essentially advising that the name change was effected by AF Form...
Despite this, the applicant claims the MPF stated he had to accept the C-141 training because he had three and one-half years remaining on his UPT ADSC. Despite Block II of the AF Form 63 not being initialed, the applicant signed the AF Form 63 reflecting the correct ADSC and thus accepted the ADSC (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 4). In this case, however, the applicant has presented persuasive evidence that he agreed to the C-141 IQT training under the assumption that he would incur...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01920 INDEX NUMBER: 113.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for KC-135 Initial Qualification Training (IQT) of 21 August 2003 be reduced to match his Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) ADSC of 25 January 2003. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2000 | BC-1999-01920
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01920 INDEX NUMBER: 113.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for KC-135 Initial Qualification Training (IQT) of 21 August 2003 be reduced to match his Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) ADSC of 25 January 2003. ...
Had the applicant completed training 22 days early, his ADSC would have reflected his actual graduation date and not the “planned” date. Second, there is an officer in his squadron who was delayed approximately 30 days due to the same maintenance problems at Randolph PIT and, without request, had his ADSC reflect his earlier planned graduation date. He also does not recall SRA R” counseling him that if he were delayed due to reasons beyond his control, in his case maintenance problems,...
Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.2, rule 5 Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. The Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) for Air Force...