RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00204
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The date of his medical disqualification be changed from 23 October 2000 to
17 November 2000.
_________________________________________________________________
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 letters 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, Physical Standards Branch, AETC/SGPS, reviewed the application
and states that there is no sound basis to change the date of medical
disqualification since all reviews and decisions were made on 24 October
2000. Therefore, they do not support applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Chief, Aviation Continuation Pay/Phoenix Aviator, AFPC/DPAOY, reviewed
the application and states that the Air Force made no technical errors, nor
did they identify any irregularities or injustices in the processing of the
applicant’s package regarding his flying status. However, the Board may
determine the case warrants special consideration based on the applicant’s
compelling personal situation and unusual circumstances and direct that the
date of his medical disqualification be changed to a date after 16 November
2000. Such action will allow him to receive his 2001 Aviation Continuation
Pay (ACP) installment.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The applicant reviewed the evaluations and provided a response that is at
Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 29 March 2001, the Board requested additional comments from the Air
Force concerning applicant’s allegation that he was assured by one of the
highest ranking general officers that he would receive the 2001 ACP
installment.
In response to the Board’s request, AFPC/DPP provided an additional
advisory which is attached at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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 he was
assured by one of the highest ranking general officers in the Air Force
that he would receive his 2001 ACP installment. While the evidence before
this Board does reveal that the applicant had been expecting the
continuation pay in question, the majority of the Board is not persuaded
that he was promised or was directly informed that he would received the
2001 ACP installment. The applicant was involved in a helicopter accident
and suffered head trauma, lost his sense of touch and taste, and lost of
his right eye. The Board notes the injuries received in the incident;
however, since he was found permanently disqualified from aviation service
prior to receiving the installment, the majority of Board does not believe
he is entitled to the relief requested. The majority of the Board also
finds, while it was very unfortunate that the applicant was injured, no
evidence has been presented showing that he was treated any differently
than any other individuals similar situated. Therefore, the majority of
the Board recommends denial of the 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.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice
and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 29 March 2001 and 13 April 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member
By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application. Ms.
Looney voted to grant the relief requested; however, she does not desire to
submit a minority report. The following documentary evidence was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 12 Feb 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPAOY, dated 21 Mar 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Mar 01.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPP, dated 11 Apr 01.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02241 COUNSEL: ANTHONY STEFANSON HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: Applicant is the widow of a former service member, who requests that she receive the remaining annual payments of her deceased spouse's aviation continuation pay (ACP) for 1991 through 1996. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retention Analyst, AFPC/DPAR, states that applicant's counsel incorrectly states that...
Before his second board met, the rules changed making officers that wrote the board to decline promotion ineligible for separation allowance. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty on 5 May 1988 and separated in the grade of captain on 10 Oct 99 after being twice passed over for promotion to major. As a result of an ACP agreement he entered into on 10 May 96,...
Another individual's (Lt Col S---‘s) ACP agreement was faxed after his agreement and that individual received his payment on 29 Dec 99. The fact that he was not paid during 1999 was caused by his 27 day delay in signing the agreement from program inception; the massive volume of agreements that were being processed; the government closures from the holidays and the Y2K computer issues; and, different payment dates at Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) (see Exhibit B). ...
The total agreement payment amount is divided by the total length of the agreement in days (360 days per year) to arrive at a “daily rate.” This daily rate is then multiplied by the number of days served under the agreement to arrive at the amount of ACP the member has “earned.” Based on the “daily rate,” members receive the annual payment at the beginning of the agreement year with the member “earning” the payment over the course of the year. A complete copy of the DFAS-POCC/DE evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01731
AFPC/DPAOY indicated that following a thorough review of the applicant’s request, the findings and recommendations of the office of the Air Force Inspector General, Air Force Rated Force Policy, and the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, they find no further information to support this request. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02306
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should still be eligible for his ACP since he transferred to a full time position with the Air National Guard (ANG) and will be performing the same duties that qualified him for ACP on active duty. They point out that paragraph 2.2, “Recoupment,” states officers will be advised that if the SecAF approves their request for release from active duty or accepts their resignations, they may be subject...
On 7 Jan 00 he signed an Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) agreement and incurred an active duty service commitment date (ADSC) of 29 Sep 15. Any misunderstanding the applicant had concerning deadlines associated with the ACP was due to a failure on his part to read the associated instructions, and does not constitute an error or injustice on the part 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...
His AFSC of K1A171C was withdrawn because he was medically disqualified from performing flying duties. As such, he was medically disqualified from the AFSC and it was withdrawn. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00774 INDEX NUMBER: 115.01 121.03 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Aviation Service Date (ASD) of 26 May 88 he was given after transferring from the Navy to the Air Force be changed to 14 Dec 87, the date he had before the transfer. He transferred from the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00937
This exam is required for all students being considered for elimination to ensure students are “medically qualified at the time of any non-medical disenrollment.” As a result, the applicant was to be reinstated into training following a Medical Hold status to resolve the medical issue. At the time of her elimination, there was a policy allowing up to 6 months in Medical Hold before students would be considered for elimination. Then following the 3-month Medical Hold, the Flight Surgeon...