Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0003113
Original file (0003113.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03113
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation be changed to "Attend School  Full  Time
in an Officer Training Program" versus "Officer Training Program."

_________________________________________________________________

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 offices of the Air Force at Exhibit C and F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS, Separations Branch, reviewed this  application  and  recommended
denial.  A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant's response to the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________




ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFROTC/RRUE recommended denial of applicant's request.  A  complete  copy
of the evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the additional evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant
on 3 August 2001, for review and comments; 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 a probable injustice to warrant changing the  narrative  reason
for  the  applicant’s  separation.   In  this  respect,  we  note  that  the
applicant was discharged to attend school full time in the  Reserve  Officer
Training Corps (ROTC) Program.  However, the applicant  has  indicated  that
she is ineligible to receive unemployment compensation  from  the  state  of
Florida unless her DD Form 214 indicates that she was discharged  to  attend
school  full  time.   The  applicant  alleges  that  she  was  miscounseled;
however, she has failed to provide  evidence  to  support  this  contention.
While normally this Board would require such evidence prior to  rendering  a
favorable  decision,  based  on  the  circumstances  of  this  case   (i.e.,
applicant has completed the ROTC program, obtained a  commission,  and  only
received a $200.00 monthly ROTC stipend resulting in a financial  hardship),
we believe the interest of justice can  best  be  served  by  resolving  any
doubt in her behalf.  In view of this, and since the ROTC  program  requires
full time status, we recommend her DD Form 214, issued  on  24 August  2000,
be amended to reflect that she was separated to attend school full  time  in
an officer training program.  The applicant  should  be  advised  that  this
Board  has  no  control  over  whether  she  is  successful   in   receiving
unemployment compensation from the state of Florida.   However,  we  believe
the recommended correction to her record will  provide  her  fitting  relief
since  it  will  provide  her  an  opportunity  to  apply  for  unemployment
compensation.





4.  Although not requested by the applicant, she also alleges that  she  was
miscounselled regarding her eligibility for scholarships, O1-E pay, and  the
Professional Officer  Course  Incentive  (POCI).   However,  since  she  was
commissioned after her 30th birthday she is  ineligible  for  the  POCI  and
could not apply for scholarships.  Since she separated prior  to  completion
of over four years of enlisted service, she  is  also  ineligible  for  O1-E
pay.  Applicant  has  failed  to  provide  evidence  showing  that  she  was
miscounseled regarding these issues.   Therefore,  we  find  no  basis  upon
which to recommend further relief.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be  corrected  by  amending  Block  28  (Narrative  Reason  for
Separation) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of  Release  or  Discharge  from
Active Duty, issued on 24 August 2000, to reflect “Attend School  Full  Time
in an Officer Training Program.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  00-03113
in Executive Session on 19 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III Panel Chair
                       Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
                       Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Nov 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Jan 01.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Jan 01.
     Exhibit E.  Applicant, dated 15 Feb 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit F.  Applicant, AFROTC/RRUE, dated 24 Jul 01.
     Exhibit G.  Applicant, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Aug 01.




                                  FREDERICK R. BEAMAN, III
                                  Panel Chair

AFBCMR 00-03113




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
APPLICANT, be corrected by amending Block 28 (Narrative Reason for
Separation) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty, issued on 24 August 2000, to reflect “Attend School Full Time
in an Officer Training Program.”







JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-02517

    Original file (BC-2002-02517.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that he agrees with AFPC’s summary of his basis for request except for their final statement, “…there was a delay in signing the required paperwork needed to make the correction to his DIEUS.” He states, actually, there was an AFROTC-induced delay in processing his four-year scholarship award delaying his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00623

    Original file (BC-2004-00623.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 September 1993, the applicant signed an AF Form 1056, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Contract. Congress purposely made ROTC graduates ineligible for the MGIB in its effort to prevent individuals from receiving “double” benefits. She further indicates if she received scholarship monies she would have received between $6,000.00 and $12,000.00 per year.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9502296

    Original file (9502296.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In order to be discharged, she had to be legally and properly discharged. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit K. The Chief, General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, also reviewed the case and indicates applicant's contention that the discharge order was not effective until 27 June 1993 should be rejected because she had sufficient constructive knowledge of her discharge to make it effective 11 June 1993. Air Force.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02063

    Original file (BC-2004-02063.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter, dated 5 Jul 05, the applicant provided documentation regarding verification of his possible entitlements due to the loss of his AFROTC Scholarship, which is attached at Exhibit L. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFOATS/JA indicated that according to the Base Educators Guide, dated 1 Mar 00, to be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02743

    Original file (BC 2013 02743.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02743 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. AFROTC records indicate that he received POCI funds, which was confirmed in his request as well. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01135

    Original file (BC-2004-01135.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of her appeal, applicant provides a letter from her detachment stating that she disclosed her illness and medications before attending field training, a letter from her psychiatrist, copy of an e-mail message, and a letter from her AFROTC commander. On 15 Jan 03, a DD Form 785 was completed disenrolling the applicant from the AFROTC program effective 31 Mar 03 for medical disqualification by reason of bi-polar depression and failure to maintain military retention standards. We...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01923

    Original file (BC-2005-01923.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    d. The applicant admitted to deceiving the Commander of the AFROTC Detachment (Det) and a professor by lying about a grade change. On 26 Jan 04, the AFROTC Det commander requested from HQ AFROTC the applicant be investigated for disenrollment. However, the captains stated the applicant arrived at about 1230 on 12 Nov 03 and within 15 to 20 minutes of the interview began to tell the truth about her actions on the PFT, the failed summer course, being signed into LLAB, and lying to the AFROTC...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03641

    Original file (BC-2012-03641.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant applied for an HPSP scholarship and it was denied. The JA advisory opinion states that “applicant simply had no reasonable basis to believe he was entitled to an HPSP scholarship.” However, the applicant had a firm basis to believe he was contracted under the HPSP given the Air Force via the commanding officer of the AFROTC program, believed there was a binding contract, thus signing a letter stating the applicant was “guaranteed” a HPSP scholarship. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03113

    Original file (BC-2006-03113.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03113 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 Apr 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The separation program designator (SPD) be changed on her DD Form 214 so she will be eligible for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002975

    Original file (0002975.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. In reference to the applicant’s third allegation, he does not specify any particular error that was made. Therefore, they recommend that no change be made to applicant’s military records. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.