Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200850
Original file (0200850.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00850
            INDEX CODE:  102.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) to the Air Force Reserve grade of major  be  adjusted
to reflect the time he served in the Army Reserve as a major.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant makes no contentions.  In support of his request,  he  provided  a
copy of his Air Force Reserve (USAFR) and  Army  Reserve  promotion  orders,
and his Honorable Discharge  certificate.   His  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is 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 at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB reviewed applicant's request and  recommends  denial.   DPB  states
that he was appointed captain, USAFR, on 19 Sep  96  following  a  break  in
service from the Army Reserve.  He was awarded 12 years, 3  months,  and  11
days constructive credit.  This  credit  reflected  his  prior  commissioned
service with the Army and Army Reserve, and  his  experiential  credit.   He
did not have  enough  credit  to  warrant  appointment  as  a  major,  which
required a minimum 14 years constructive credit.  Appointment as  a  captain
required 7 years constructive credit and the additional 5  years,  3  months
and 11 days was credited to his DOR (8 Jun 91).  He was awarded  credit  for
his prior service.  Policy prohibits  counting  credit  more  than  once  in
determining service credit.  The DPB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26  Apr
02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After reviewing the available evidence  of
record it appears that his service credit  has  been  appropriately  applied
and  evidence  has  not  been  presented  that  would  lead  us  to  believe
otherwise.  Therefore, 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.  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 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  Docket  Number  02-00850  in
Executive Session on 27 Jun 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 12 Apr 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Apr 02.




                                             ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200868

    Original file (0200868.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00868 INDEX CODE: 102.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the grade of captain on 2 Apr 51, to the grade of major on 19 Apr 55, and to the grade of lieutenant colonel on 1 Jul 62. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200789

    Original file (0200789.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00789 INDEX CODE: 114.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 4 Sep 96 through 3 Sep 97, be declared void and removed from his records. The DPB evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201218

    Original file (0201218.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    Submission of the original on the indicated 30 Nov 01 date would have been in sufficient time to process the nomination even if the fax copy had been misrouted or not sent. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT to include the attached Promotion Recommendation Form, AF Form 709, signed by General Scott, be considered for promotion to the grade...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00089

    Original file (BC-2002-00089.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    This section states, “…a reserve officer’s years of service include all service, other than constructive service, of the officer as a commissioned officer of any uniformed service (other than service as a warrant officer).” The applicant believes that use of the time as a warrant officer should not count when computing time for establishing MSD. Applicant’s complete response to the additional Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03305

    Original file (BC-2004-03305.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPO provides an informational advisory without a recommendation, advising the applicant was considered but not selected by the CY93B major board. A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPO provides a technical advisory confirming the applicant’s DOR to captain was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202088

    Original file (0202088.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    INDEX CODE: 131.01 AFBCMR 02-02088 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Staff and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202753

    Original file (0202753.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    INDEX CODE: 131.01 AFBCMR 02-02753 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Staff and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0001994

    Original file (0001994.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Promotion Board Secretariat, HQ ARPC/DPB, stated that the applicant provided a copy of the mandatory [in- and above-the- promotion zone (I/APZ)] and Position Vacancy (PV) date of rank (DOR) requirements for the 99 March Chaplains Captain Selection Board. As DPB previously stated, HQ ARPC/HC provided a letter attesting that the IMA chaplains did not have any PV quotas available for the FY00 Captains...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02708

    Original file (BC-2003-02708.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPB reviewed the application and recommended denial of the applicant’s request for appointment as a major. b. HQ USAF/REPX provided interim guidance on 26 Nov 02 to prepare all Reserve grade determinations for appointment to the grade of captain in accordance with SAF/OS authorization provided on 19 Dec 01, which changed the time in grade to 2 years for promotion to the grade of captain in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03904

    Original file (BC-2007-03904.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was promoted to the grade of captain with a DOR of 31 May 1993, and promoted to the grade of major with a DOR of 1 October 2001. 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. He did not incur a break in service as he...