RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01352
INDEX CODE: 102.08
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded 24 months constructive service credit (CSC) at the time
of his commission as a Reserve officer on 14 April 1995.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Applicant states that it is unjust to award a Biomedical Service Corp
(BSC) or Nurse Corp (NC) between 18 and 24 months CSC for a masters
degree while limiting Medical Service Corp (MSC) officers to 18 months
for the same education level. He believes that the same criteria
should be used to compute CSC for all health professional officers.
He also states that this discriminatory policy has caused him to fall
behind his peers and delay/deny future timely promotion opportunities.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Staff. Accordingly, there is no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Director of Assignments, Air Reserve Personnel Center, reviewed
this application and states that the applicant's service credit is in
accordance with current policies in effect at the time of his
commission. No errors exist in the applicant's record and they
believe the applicant received fair consideration based upon the
guidance in effect at the time of his commission. Based on the
evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant's request.
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that to
restore integrity to the MSC, the Board should approve his request.
In addition, the Board should direct ARPC to review and correct the
records of any other MSC officers restricted by the discriminatory
policy. This action will demonstrate a sense of fairness and create
an environment that places responsibility for future opportunities at
the individual level instead of imposed restrictions that hold back
sub-groups of Air Force officers, compared to their peers.
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.
________________________________________________________________
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. After reviewing the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records
are in error or that he has been the victim of an injustice. His
contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments
provided by the appropriate Air Force office adequately address those
allegations. Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendation of
the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. 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 issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
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 3 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPA, dated 29 Jun 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Jul 99.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 6 Aug 99.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
There was no evidence that the service member made an election at that time. Therefore, based on the evidence provided they recommend denying the applicant’s 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02263
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. The package clearly identified the 90-day suspense and there is no evidence applicant made an election at that time. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). The applicant contends that he was never notified that if he did not elect RCSBP coverage within the required timeframe that his coverage would be automatically enrolled under Option A. The applicant was notified on two occasions of his eligibility to enroll in RCSBP but did not elect coverage either time.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-02960 INDEX CODE: 131.09, 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be advanced to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for retirement and awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and an Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM). No documentary evidence has been presented to substantiate...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01062 INDEX CODE 135.02 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade of E-7 be restored and he be awarded 13 additional points for the period 30 July 1996 to 29 July 1997 for a satisfactory year of Federal service, credited for 12 years, 4 months, and 19 days of prior active Federal...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01062
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01062 INDEX CODE 135.02 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade of E-7 be restored and he be awarded 13 additional points for the period 30 July 1996 to 29 July 1997 for a satisfactory year of Federal service, credited for 12 years, 4 months, and 19 days of prior active Federal...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel provided a response to the Air Force evaluation, which included another letter from the applicant, her son-in-law and a friend of the deceased military member. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt...
The Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) information package sent to the former servicemember, when he was initially eligible to establish survivor coverage on the applicant’s behalf, specifically advised the member that his RCSBP election certificate had to be received by the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) within 90 days of receipt of the package at his home. A review of the evidence submitted does not reveal that the deceased member was provided inadequate information...
Based on the audit, the applicant's R/R was changed from 2 October to 14 June. The applicant was notified on 17 April 1999 about the change in his R/R date and that his points were being realigned to coincide with the 14 June R/R date. DPP further states the applicant was notified of the change in his R/R year date in April 1999 and he received an AF Form 526 for RYE 13 June 1999, and furthermore, the applicant had adequate time to earn points for the RYE 13 June 2000.
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03390 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: STEPHEN J. DUNN HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE On 21 April 1998, the Board considered and denied applicant's 11 July 1997 application requesting that (1) her uncharacterized discharge be changed to a medical discharge; (2) a referral to a Physical Evaluation Board...