RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00892
INDEX CODE: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His current Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) scores
be changed back to his original scores.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement
and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his
contentions. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard in the
grade of technical sergeant (E-6).
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 C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFP recommends the application be denied. DPFP stated that the
only test scores recorded are those dated Feb 87. They provided a Dec
99 message explaining that, due to the increased technical nature of
many Air Force specialties, the skills required have changed.
Therefore, every member’s mechanical and administrative scores have
been recalculated. DPFP stated that if the member requires a higher
score to maintain his current position, he must retest. The ANG/DPFP
evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 14
June 2002 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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. His contentions are duly noted;
however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by
themselves sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force office of primary responsibility. We therefore agree
with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and conclude that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden that he has suffered either an error or injustice. In the
absence of sufficient 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 this application in
Executive Session on 23 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00892.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPFP, dated 4 Jun 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 02.
PATRICIA D. VESTAL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02395
Applicant’s NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, reflects that he received a general discharge on 31 May 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, para 3.21.3.2 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ANG/DPFP recommends denial. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-02395
Applicant’s NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, reflects that he received a general discharge on 31 May 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, para 3.21.3.2 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ANG/DPFP recommends denial. 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...
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...
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. ...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard on 7 Mar 2002. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-04285
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, an Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) member of the Arizona ANG (AZ ANG), was laterally transferred into a full-time GS-09 civilian position attached to a military position at the grade of SMSgt. 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...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated that he understands that ACP was not designed for members serving in different pay status formats. The available evidence indicates that the applicant terminated his ACP agreement when he left AGR status and became a Traditional Guardsman prior to completing his ACP service commitment. ...
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. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00456 INDEX CODE: 128.12 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her initial set of orders be corrected to reflect a tour length of 140 days so that she may be authorized to receive basic allowance for housing (BAH- I) commencing the first date of her orders in support of Joint Task Force (JTF) -...