RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01022
INDEX NUMBER: 110.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Date of Separation (DOS) be changed to 28 years of commissioned
service or at least until announcement of the results of the CY2003
Colonels Promotion board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
When he accepted the active duty recall, he signed a statement of
understanding indicating that he would be considered for promotion to
colonel in the primary zone (IPZ) by the CY2003 06 Promotion Board.
He says this was the reason he accepted the extended active duty tour.
He was told he had to sign the statement of understanding prior to
acceptance of active duty.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of the statement
of understanding, dated 16 Nov 98 (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant, a Reserve Officer, was voluntarily ordered to extended
active duty (EAD) effective 6 January 1999, under the Voluntary
Reserve Officer EAD Program. Based on his total active federal
military service date (TAFMSD) of 15 January 1982, the applicant has
an established date of separation of 31 January 2002.
On 16 November 1998, he signed a Statement of Understanding,
indicating that he understood his DOR was tentatively calculated as 1
October 1998 and that he understood that he would be eligible for the
IPZ consideration to colonel in CY2003.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 8 May 2001, the Proc Programs and Procedures, HQ AFPC/DPPAES,
considered the applicant’s request and recommended the request be
denied. They state the applicant is a reserve officer who applied for
recall to active duty under the Voluntary Air Battle Manager Recall
Program. He was advised on 24 August 1998 that he was selected for
the recall and subsequently ordered to extended active duty on 6
January 1999 (SO AGA-023).
His established date of separation is 31 January 2002. At that time,
he will have a total of 20 years and 16 days of total active federal
military service (TAFMS) and will have to separate in accordance with
Air Force policy, which limits reserve officers to 20 years of TAFMS.
They further state that as a part of the assessment of the applicant’s
recall package, a tentative date of rank was calculated to determine
when he would be eligible to meet the 06 active duty list (ADL)
promotion board. The Statement of Understanding the applicant signed
is an instrument used to have the applicants acknowledge they are
aware when they will be eligible to meet their first active duty
promotion board “(if they are still on active duty at the time the
board meets).” In the applicant’s case, there was no guarantee he
could remain on active duty past his established DOS to meet the
CY2003 promotion board.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant requests he be granted an exception to policy. He
believes that allowing him to serve past 20 years of active duty is in
the best interest of the Air Force. He is an Air Battle Manager,
which is a critically short career field and has been for quite some
time.
When he accepted the recall, he did not realize that he would be
forced to retire after three years and, had he known, he would have
planned his life accordingly, knowing that he would need to find
employment after the end of that period.
He further explains his understanding of the whole process and the
documents he signed and what impact they would have on his career in
the future.
In support of his response, he submitted a copy of his initial recall
package and letters of recommendation from the commander of USCENTAF,
his group and squadron commanders.
Applicant’s complete response is 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. 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. Therefore, in the absence of 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 2 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, dated 8 May 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jun 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jul 01, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03028 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) to SSgt (E-5) be corrected from 29 Feb 00 to 2 Nov 97, his DOR when he served in the Air National Guard (ANG); his extended active duty (EAD) date reflect 2 Mar 99 vice 29 Feb 00, and his Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) tests...
He incurred a two-year ADSC which expires on 23 January 1999. Another source available to applicant at the time was the HQ AFPC/DPPAW message, dated 25 January 1996, titled, “Voluntary Extended Active Duty (EAD)/Recall for Navigators and Electronic Warfare Officers (Atch 7). In that information sheet, it also clearly stated in paragraph 1.e., “Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC): Each officer accepting EAD will receive an initial ADSC of two years.
_________________________________________________________________ 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 at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPO recommends the applicant’s EAD requirement be waived to the normal six months and he be allowed to meet the CY02B...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01868 INDEX NUMBER: 131.10;135.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His nonselection for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board be removed or considered a below-the-zone (BPZ) nonselection. He indicates that the 1 Oct...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00661
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Officer Selection Record (OSR) was wrongfully considered by the CY97 Major Board. He believes that based on AFI 36-2501, dated 16 July 2004, under promotion ineligibility, he should not have been considered for promotion, because he returned to active duty under the Voluntary Recall Program, which required 12 months on active duty prior to meeting a board. The applicant’s complete response, with...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00134 INDEX CODE: 112.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlistment grade be changed from senior airman (E-4) to his previous grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with a date of rank of 1 Sep 95. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was miscounseled on his enlistment options for the Regular Air Force and as a result, he lost a stripe and active duty time. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05134
His records were also corrected to show that he was recalled to active duty under the Limited Period Recall Program (LPRP) effective 1 Dec 09, and his records be considered by a SSB CY10 United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) Line and Non-Line Colonels Promotion Selection Board. Per AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion, Continuation and Selective Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force, Section 2.7.3, all ANG/USAFR officers serving on a Limited Recall to Extended Active Duty (LEAD) tour...
Upon implementation of DOD Directive 1310.1, Rank and Seniority of Commissioned Officers, effective 1 Oct 96, all reserve officers on the Reserve Active Status List in transition from the reserves to active duty, would retain the date of rank they held in their reserve unit. Sections 12207, 12320, 14002, 14003, and 143 17 of reference (b) to establish policies governing the determination of the dates of rank and precedence of commissioned offi- cers on the Reserve Active Status List. at...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03832
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03832 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reenlistment eligibility (RE) code reflected on his DD Form 214 be changed to allow him to return to active duty. DPPAES further states the reenlistment eligibility code "4D" is the applicable code for a member whose grade is...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02039
On 8 May 2000, applicant elected to continue on active duty and understood that he would be considered for promotion by active duty promotion boards. This action was based on the applicant being forced to meet an active duty board with one active duty report and non-completion of ISS. At no time did the applicant request his tour be curtailed or that he be removed from the active duty list.