RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00261
INDEX CODE: 110.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).
_________________________________________________________________
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 (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFP recommended denial. They indicated that the applicant would
like to rejoin the New Mexico Air National Guard after being
discharged March 1989. The applicant wants to reenlist as a staff
sergeant, but after speaking with a recruiter, he was told that he was
discharged as a senior airman (E-4) and had to enlist as an E-4.
Unfortunately, the applicant was demoted to the grade of E-4, 24
January 1989 per Special Order PBBJ-10. Also, his separation order,
PACA-18 was amended to reflect his grade change from E-5 to E-4.
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 5 April 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days. 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. 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
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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
00261 in Executive Session on 9 May 2002 under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Panel Chair
Mr. James E. Short, Member
Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 January 2002, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPFP, dated 21 March 2002.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 April 2002.
LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03654
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 National Guard (ANG) office of primary responsibility that ANG Instructions are clear on the establishment of DOR and subsequent requests for adjustments to such. The applicant had in excess of a two-year break in service from the Air Force before enlisting into the ANG establishing his DOR to be the date of his enlistment into the ANG. ...
On 1 Mar 88, he was honorably discharged and transferred to the Reserve of the Air Force in the grade of senior airman (SrA/E-4). He was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on 22 May 1994. Applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard and was demoted to the grade of airman basic (E-1); he was subsequently discharged for unsatisfactory participation and transferred to HQ ARPC on 14 June 1990.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02610
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02610 INDEX CODE: 102.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her promotion date and date of rank (DOR) be changed from 4 June 2002 to 19 April 2002. In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a letter from the 175 MDS/SG, dated 26 June 2002 and Special Order A& - 272, dated 7 June 2002. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03074
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03074 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JNF – Drug Abuse be changed to remove “Drug Abuse” from his record. His submission, with...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03074
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03074 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JNF – Drug Abuse be changed to remove “Drug Abuse” from his record. His submission, with...
_________________________________________________________________ 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. The remaining 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...
DPFP states that when he enlisted NGR 39-9, Grade Determination for Prior Service Enlistees, was the applicable regulation. After reviewing the available evidence of record it appears that his grade and date of rank upon enlistment into the Air National Guard were properly determined. Accordingly, 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01823
DPFP’s evaluation, along with attached correspondence from the -- ANG Chief of Staff and an e-mail trail between DPFP and the ANG Advisor to the Commander for 19th Air Force, is at Exhibit B. HQ AETC/DOF recommends the applicant not be reinstated into SUPT. DOF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant notes that the National Guard Bureau (NGB) has...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01253 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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 Staff and adopt their rationale as the...
Unfortunately, the other unit within the state held a promotion board and used the allocation during the same time of his promotion board. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the control grade roster provided by DPFP is from April 2001 and does not reflect the information that it should. This would reflect an error on the part of the monthly control grade report.