RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01779
INDEX CODE: 135.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect credit for pay and points for his
cancelled Military Personnel Appropriations (MPA) tour at Johnson
Space Center, Houston, Texas, from 26 Apr 93 to 30 Sep 93.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was assigned to and began an Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC)
requested/approved six-month MPA tour. Even though he had a security
clearance (which was never revoked, suspended, or denied) during this
time, and despite the fact this tour required no security clearance,
the tour was abruptly canceled after four weeks (20 Man-Days), in Apr
93 because he lacked the required security clearance. His tour
supervisor and reporting official tried and failed to get it
reinstated.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded
statement, supportive statements, and other documents associated with
the matter under review.
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in
the grade of lieutenant colonel. He is credited with 23 years, 3
months, and 15 days of satisfactory Federal service for retirement.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in 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 FORCE EVALUATION:
The Directorate, Health Services Individual Reserve Programs, ARPC/SG,
reviewed this application and recommended denial. ARPC/SG, noted that
Headquarters, Air Force Materiel Command (HQ AFMC) requested
Bioenvironmental Engineer MPA support for Johnson Space Center,
Houston, Texas, from 29 Mar 93 to 30 Sep 93. They requested the
applicant by name. HQ ARPC/SGR approved the request as five-day
incremental tours until 30 Sep 93. The applicant reported for duty on
29 Mar 93; however, due to security clearance issues, the tour was
canceled by HQ AFMC and HQ ARPC/SGR on 23 Apr 93. The applicant was
unable to obtain a secret security clearance for position placement.
According to ARPC/SG, the applicant did not perform duty beyond 23 Apr
93 and, therefore, should not be granted pay or points. Points may
only be credited to the date a member actually performed the duty.
A complete copy of the ARPC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response and
additional documentary evidence which are attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, reviewed this application and
indicated that they contacted HQ ARPC/SG and the applicant's unit at
Tinker AFB to obtain more details regarding the issue surrounding the
security clearance. Unfortunately, no one they spoke with could
provide any information regarding the applicant's security clearance
or why his tour was terminated. Therefore, they are unable to provide
an opinion regarding this application.
JAG recommended that the Board request the applicant's security file
from the Defense Security Service before acting on the application.
The file should contain information relevant to his security clearance
and assist the Board in determining the merits of the application.
A complete copy of the JAG evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response, the applicant indicated that the Defense Security
Service does not and never has had his security clearance file. Their
files only have a Sep 90 investigation, with nothing relevant or
mentioned about 1993. It could not because it was closed out in 1990.
He asked that the Board grant his appeal.
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. According to the
available evidence, the applicant’s MPA tour was canceled due to
security clearance issues. The applicant contends that he had a
security clearance. He further asserts that the tour did not require
a security clearance. He also provided a statement from his reporting
official who indicated it was his opinion that no security clearance
was required to perform the necessary tasks. As a result, he
requested that the applicant’s tour be reinstated but did not receive
a favorable response to his request. For reasons which are not very
clear in this appeal, a decision was made to not continue the
applicant’s tour. We took note of USAF/JAG’s suggestion that the
Board request the applicant’s security file from the Defense Security
Service (DSS) prior to making a final determination regarding this
case. However, the DSS has advised that no such records are
available. Notwithstanding the security clearance issue, in our view,
it was within command discretion to terminate the tour. We are not
inclined to disturb the discretionary judgments of commanding
officers, who are closer to events, absent a strong showing of abuse
of that authority. No evidence has been presented which has shown to
our satisfaction that there was an abuse of discretionary authority.
In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of clear-cut 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 issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 6 Dec 00 and 27 Aug 01, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence Groner, Member
Mrs. Diana Arnold, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Jun 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/SG, dated 11 Sep 00.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Sep 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, applicant, dated 17 Nov 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, HQ USAF/JAG, dated 13 Mar 01.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Mar 01.
Exhibit G. Letter, applicant, dated 7 May 01.
TEDDY L. HOUSTON
Panel Chair
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Officer Promotion & Appointment Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, recommended that, since the applicant is not eligible for active duty promotions, he remain on the RASL and be eligible to compete for Reserve promotion boards. It is further recommended that, if he is not selected by the FY00 board, he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by SSB for any subsequent Air Force Reserve selection boards for which he may have been...
They state that the Military Personnel Flight's (MPF) inclusion of an IEB on the applicant's supplemental enlistment agreement was an administrative error and is not legally binding as he was not authorized to receive an IEB in the 1N431 AFS. In response to the Board's request, the General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG reviewed the application and recommended the request be denied. __________________________________________________________________________ ______________________ THE BOARD...
The determinative issue is solely whether Air Force counsel can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that my client stated his sexual orientation for the specific purpose of seeking separation from the Air Force. The Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG) agrees with the argument advanced by the applicant in the Reply Brief of 30 Sep 00 that the Board could only require recoupment of AFHPSP funds if it found that the applicant made his statement of homosexual orientation for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03885
Applicant was appointed in the Reserve of the Air Force as a lieutenant colonel on 30 Sep 02, under the Retired Active Duty Reserve Accession Program (RADRAP). Since the applicant must be retired to apply under the Retired Active Duty Reserve Accession Program the applicant was not placed on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) from the Active Duty List (ADL). Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. In the applicant’s response to the HQ USAF/JAG opinion, he...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02431
The ADB recommended the applicant be discharged from the USAFR with an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPP asserts that the ADB is responsible for determining character of service for the discharge action; however, it is not the authority for determining the highest grade satisfactorily held for the purpose of retirement. A complete copy of counsel’s response is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02663
The completed AF Form 348 was not received by SSgt L--- until 12 Aug 94. ARPC/SG explained the applicant was entitled to COP for the time he was disabled, which was from the time of the operation to the day he was released to light duty which was 30 Jun 94. Although the AF Form 1971, dated 9 Sep 94, showed the member was not released and is entitled to continued disability, and even though Major B--- testified he did not think the applicant was fit for duty or worldwide deployable during...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02006
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02006 COUNSEL: C. LEONARD SHOEMAKER HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His total active military service be corrected to include the period 14 Sep 98 to 25 Mar 99 as a period he was entitled to be on active duty orders pending the processing of the Line of Duty (LOD) determination required by AFI...
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 signed by the Executive Director or his designee. Members of the Board Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Mr. John L. Robuck, and Mr. Edward H. Parker considered this application on 8 May 2001. TEDDY L. HOUSTON Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, HQ USAF/JAG, dtd 23 Apr 01, with attachment AFBCMR 99-01391 INDEX CODE: 129.01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...
On 2 Feb 91, he enlisted in the Washington Air National Guard (ANG); he transferred to the Air Force Reserve on 10 Dec 92. On 19 Feb 95, he was discharged from the Air Force Reserve with a General discharge by reason of Defective Enlistment – Fraudulent Entry. On 5 Jul 94, HQ AFRES/CV approved the findings and recommendations and the case file was forwarded to the Air Force Personnel Board (AFPB) for a determination as to whether the applicant should receive Lengthy Service Probation (LSP).
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-00295
The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, noted that Section 2005 provides for recoupment if a member fails to complete the ADSC voluntarily or due to misconduct. On 14 Aug 01, DFAS-POCC/DE advised the applicant that, based on her placement on the TDRL, it was inappropriate at this time to recoup monies which might not be owed if...