RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03394
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Fourteen days currently listed as Inactive Service Time be credited as
Active Service time, in order to receive a full twenty-year
retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are 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 Force. Accordingly, there is no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Retirement Branch, AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed the application and
recommended denial. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 23 Mar 01, for review and response. 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 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. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that his Inactive Service time should be credited toward
Active service time for the purpose of retirement. Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. He
has provided no evidence demonstrating that he had entered public
service by being employed with the City of Sedalia police department.
Should the applicant provide proof of his employment with the Sedalia
police department, we would be willing to review his case for possible
reconsideration. We therefore agree with the 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.
Therefore, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in
this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 3 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Dec 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Available Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 12 Mar 01.
Exhibit D. SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01.
HENRY ROMO, JR
Panel Chair
According to his DD Form 214, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 June 1974. On 3 May 2001, the applicant’s request that his inactive time of 14 days be credited as active service in order that he be credited with a 20- year retirement was considered and denied by the Board (see Exhibit E). ____________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After reviewing the applicant’s request and the additional documentation, we are not persuaded to credit the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03182 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) and separation codes be changed to allow her to enlist in the Coast Guard. Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the AFDRB brief is attached at Exhibit...
Applicant’s submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provides a response which is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01 Exhibit D. Applicant’s Response, dated 11 Apr 01.
If it had he would not have separated from the Air Force. DPPRR states that on page 30 of the applicant’s original package, it is clearly documented that in October 1990, the applicant was diagnosed with Sarcoidosis and in April 1994 with Hepatitis C. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s letter dated 13 August 2001 further states that the member was aware of his medical condition at the time of separation. The applicant’s medical records clearly show that he was diagnosed with “Hepatitis C” in...
_______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The citation for his AFCM (3OLC) was not included in his officer selection record (OSR) that met the CY00A central lieutenant colonel selection board although he had previously verified that it was part of his master personnel record during a Spring 1999 records review at the Air Force Personnel Center. The board was aware of the decoration, however, since the decoration was included on the officer...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Special Programs & AFBCMR Manager, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, also evaluated the case and explains why they corrected the applicant’s RE code from “3A” to “2N.” However, if the relief sought is granted, then the author recommends the applicant’s RE code be changed to “3K” (“Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other RE code applies or is inappropriate [sic].” [The definition for “3K” provided by DPPAES is incorrect because that meaning...
In support of his request applicant provided a copy of his 17 Dec 96 OPR; Grand Forks County District Court orders; his criminal record check; statements from his rater and additional rater; and, his Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision. Although the Grand Forks County District Court dismissed the charges against him, when the rater signed and referred the OPR on 2 Jan 96, the statement on the OPR was a true and accurate statement (see Exhibit C). We took notice of...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the...
The results of his latest MRI show that he has more than degenerative arthritis. In a 30 Jan 98 TDRL evaluation, an orthopedic surgeon noted the applicant had continued symptoms after the operation with no improvement in either his back or leg pain. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his first letter, the applicant indicates he did agree with the findings of the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03400 INDEX CODES: 100.06, 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this...