ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00937
COUNSEL: FRED L. BAUER
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. The Administrative Discharge Board (i.e., AFR 36-2) action be set
aside and removed from his records.
2. He receive constructive service credit for a total of 20 years for
the time he would have spent in the Georgia Air National Guard (GA ANG).
3. Retroactive promotion to the grade of colonel, or in the alternative,
to the grade of lieutenant colonel.
4. His records be corrected to show that he was entitled to Guard
retired pay at age 60.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served on active duty during the period 14 November 1947
through 25 August 1950. On 25 August 1950, his commission was revoked and
he was discharged. He completed a total of 8 years, 6 days, and 5 days of
active service.
On 5 May 1954, in a formal hearing, the Board considered the applicant’s
request to be reinstated in the Regular Air Force, or in the alternative,
that he be considered eligible for appointment in the Air Force Reserve so
that he could enter the Georgia Air National Guard (ANG). The Board found
no basis to recommend his reinstatement in the Regular Air Force and denied
the application. However, the Board did recommend that, if possible, the
applicant be appointed in the Air Force Reserve for the purpose of serving
in the Georgia ANG. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicant’s separation and the rationale of the earlier
decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.
On 24 September 1954, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (ASAF)
requested comments from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCS/P) as
to the advisability of tendering the applicant a Reserve appointment.
On 8 October 1954, the DCS/P recommended the applicant not receive a
Reserve appointment and on 21 October 1954, the ASAF approved the Board’s
decision denying the application.
On 24 May 1996, the applicant was awarded the DFC for extraordinary
achievement while participating in aerial flight from 15 October 1943 to 14
January 1944.
In an application, dated 27 February 2000, the applicant, through counsel,
provided additional documentation, requested reconsideration of his
application, and amended his request to include setting aside and expunging
the AFR 36-2 discharge action from his records; crediting him with 20 years
of constructive service, with entitlement to Reserve retired pay at age 60;
and promotion to the grade of colonel, or at least lieutenant colonel. The
applicant’s counsel contends that during the administrative actions taken
against the applicant, he was not afforded due process. Furthermore, at
the time the ASAF denied his application, the ASAF was unaware that he had
not been fraudulent about his medals, and that he really was entitled to
them. Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the
evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted by applicant,
we are not persuaded that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.
The applicant’s award of the DFC is noted; however, the issue of whether or
not he was fraudulent about his decorations was not a basis for the
discharge action taken against him. To the contrary, it was his leadership
deficiencies, poor performance, and temperamental unsuitability for
retention, upon which it was based. In the absence of evidence that the
applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the additional 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 18 December 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. Jay Jordan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 21 Oct 54, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 00, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2004-03796-2
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01679 INDEX CODE: 100.00 XXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: EUGENE FIDELL HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation be declared void, he be retroactively reinstated to active duty, he be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, and allowed to remain on active duty until he became eligible for...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-01679-2
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01679 INDEX CODE: 100.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: EUGENE FIDELL HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation be declared void, he be retroactively reinstated to active duty, he be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, and allowed to remain on active duty until he became eligible for...
AFMAN 36-8001, Reserve Personnel Participation and Training Procedures, does not apply to the ANG, the component to which he belonged at the time he performed the 48 IDT periods. The remaining 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 Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/FMF recommends the...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD), Total Years Service Date (TYSD), Pay Date, and Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) are in error. With his five years in the active Air Force, he had almost eighteen years of military service when he was informed in Jan 00, that he would be discharged immediately. There was no evidence that the applicant was informed by ARPC of the implications of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00089
This section states, “…a reserve officer’s years of service include all service, other than constructive service, of the officer as a commissioned officer of any uniformed service (other than service as a warrant officer).” The applicant believes that use of the time as a warrant officer should not count when computing time for establishing MSD. Applicant’s complete response to the additional Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01016 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS: (1) Relief from the provisions of the “pay cap” of 5 USC 5532(c) as applied to his compensation; or, if not granted or if not within the jurisdiction of the Board, (2) An option to relinquish his retirement from the Air Force and to elect either (a) the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) or (b) the...
The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. The applicant was released from the Army Reserve on 6 June 1977. The applicant was appointed in the Washington ANG effective 1 May 1979 and assigned to the 560th Air Force Band.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01050
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant's discharge package was missing, however the records show that he was discharged from the New Jersey Air National Guard (NJ ANG) effective 1 October 1999. DPPI states that while no discharge record is available at this time there is sufficient evidence, including a statement from the NJ ANG Executive Staff Support Officer (ESSO), which supports the type of discharge received by the applicant. We...
He be promoted to the grade of captain in 1945 upon separation from active duty or in 1950 after serving an additional five years in the Reserve. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been awarded a DFC since he and the pilot were recommended at the same time and for the same mission and the pilot received his DFC; or in the alternative, he should be awarded the DFC based on the completion of 35 combat missions. A complete...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03359 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of captain in 1945 upon separation from active duty or in 1950 after serving an additional five years in the Reserve. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The...