RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03351
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reimbursed $492.00 for Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) testing performed
on his child.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He requested that his child be enrolled in the Defense Enrollment
Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) and was told by a Military Personnel
Flight (MPF) representative that he needed to provide a DNA test to prove
his paternity.
The applicant states that he telephoned his base clinic and was told that
DNA testing was not available. He went to a civilian center and paid for
the service himself. He returned to the MPF with the DNA test results and
was told that he needed a paternity test. After reviewing the governing
Air Force Instruction (AFI), he realized the DNA test was not necessary.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of
staff sergeant.
On 20 October 1999, the applicant’s son was born.
In a North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, State Center
for Health Statistics - N.C. Vital Records, Affidavit of Parentage for
Child Born Out of Wedlock dated 21 October 1999, the applicant and the
child’s mother certified they were the child’s parents.
A DNA Parentage Report, dated 10 November 1999, indicates that the
probability that the applicant was the parent of the child was 99.97%.
The applicant’s child is enrolled in DEERS.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Field Activities Division, AFPC/DPSFR, reviewed the application and
states that although the applicant was given erroneous advice, the
government cannot be responsible for an agent’s mistake or omission
pertaining to the criteria listed within established instructions.
Therefore, they recommend the application be denied.
A complete copy of the Air Force 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 4 February 2000, for review and response within 30 days. However, 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 timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. Although AFPC/DPSFR agrees the
applicant was given erroneous advice, they recommend denial of the
requested relief stating the government cannot be responsible for an
agent’s mistake or omission pertaining to the criteria listed within
established instructions. We disagree. Therefore, in an effort to afford
the applicant full, yet fair, relief for the expenses he incurred for the
DNA testing, we have resorted to a “creative” form of records correction.
In view of the above, we recommend the applicant be afforded relief by
correcting his records as indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was in a temporary duty status
at Maxwell AFB, Alabama for five days beginning on 1 April 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 2 May 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Ms. Leta L. O’Connor, Member
Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Dec 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSFR, dated 20 Jan 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 4 Feb 00.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 99-03351
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was in a temporary duty
status at Maxwell AFB, Alabama for five days beginning on 1 April 2001.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028188
The applicant requests her daughter be listed as the dependent of a deceased former service member (FSM). A male sponsor presents: (1) a court order that establishes paternity and the child's birth certificate, (2) an approved dependency determination as listed in paragraphs 4.9.2 and 4.10, or (3) a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity per Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness memorandum, dated 28 January 2008, subject: Determinations of Dependency for Health Care Benefits...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03863
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In January 2002, he went to the Customer Service Section at the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) in Keflavik, Iceland, to decline the spousal portion of the new FSGLI coverage. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant explained that he did not respond to AFPC/DPW’s request for additional documentation because there was...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03862
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In January 2002, she went to the Customer Service Section at the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) in Keflavik, Iceland, to decline the spousal portion of the new FSGLI coverage. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant explained that she did not respond to AFPC/DPW’s request for additional documentation because there was...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1999-00020
Effective 18 December 1998, 48 hours after she had reenlisted, paralegals in Zone A and B (2 to 6 years and 6 years to 10 years) were eligible for a reenlistment bonus. She was further informed that while the Reenlistment Section cannot know what will be on the SRB lists, it is and should be their responsibility to explain the SRB facts to all personnel reenlisting. Had the applicant been counseled concerning the release of a new Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) listing in December and...
Effective 18 December 1998, 48 hours after she had reenlisted, paralegals in Zone A and B (2 to 6 years and 6 years to 10 years) were eligible for a reenlistment bonus. She was further informed that while the Reenlistment Section cannot know what will be on the SRB lists, it is and should be their responsibility to explain the SRB facts to all personnel reenlisting. Had the applicant been counseled concerning the release of a new Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) listing in December and...
At the time the applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY98C board, the DMSM was reflected on his OSB but the citation was missing from his officer selection record (OSR). The reports outline what is missing from an officer’s OSR and request that the MPF notify the member and provide copies to AFPC for filing in the OSR prior to the board convening date. Even though the DMSM (Basic) citation was not on file in the OSR when the board convened, they knew of its...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 040004764C070208
In a 17 October 2002 memorandum to her commanding officer, Captain “B” (the applicant’s company commander) reported her findings of the informal investigation into the possible violation of Army Regulation 600-20, “Relationships between Soldiers of Different Ranks,” involving the applicant and the now Sergeant “C.” She interviewed and obtained sworn statements from Sergeant “C,” the applicant’s former company commander and first sergeant, the applicant’s replacement, Sergeant First Class...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00251 INDEX CODES: 131.00, 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect the effective date for his promotion to the grade of master sergeant as 1 Apr 96, rather than 1 Nov 97, with back and allowances. DPPPWB believes the applicant needs to provide a copy of the...
After receiving a copy of his “as met” records for the CY00A board, he discovered that no citation for the JSCM was present in his OSR. The JSCM citation still has not been filed in his OSR as of the date of his applications. TERRY A. YONKERS Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-02918 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 04054
On 7 September 2007, he tested for promotion to the grade of CMSGT, promotion cycle 07E9, under his Control AFSC (CAFSC) at the time of 8T000. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was selected for promotion to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant during promotion cycle 07E9 in the Control Air Force Specialty Code of 8T000,...