RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01764
INDEX CODE:135.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His personnel record reflect satisfactory participation in the Air Force
Reserve.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not an unsatisfactory participant. He received an Honorable
Discharge from the Air Force Reserve because he did not successfully
complete technical school. He never missed any scheduled drills while he
was an active reservist. He was unaware of this discrepancy in his record
until being denied education benefits.
In support of his appeal, the applicant submits an email from the Navy
detailing the reason he is being denied Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve
(MGIB-SR) benefits.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 13 February 1992 for a
period of 6 years. Following his successful completion of basic military
and technical training, he was assigned to an active Reserve position. He
earned satisfactory years of Federal service for the Retirement Years
(RYEs) ending 12 February 1993, 12 February 1994 and 12 February 1995. His
records reflect he did not participate after 8 January 1995 and, on 26 May
1995, he was relieved from his Reserve assignment and transferred to ARPC,
Obligated Reserve Section (ORS). He was relieved from ORS and honorably
discharged from the Air Force Reserve, effective 12 February 2000.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/DPM recommends the application be denied. DPM states that the
applicant was reassigned to ARPC for unsatisfactory participation effective
26 May 95. Based on documents provided he did not make an effort to excuse
his absences nor did he request correction to his records until he joined
the Navy Reserve on 13 February 2002, nearly 7 years from initially being
terminated from the program. AFRC/DPM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFRC/DPT recommends the application be denied. DPT states that entitlement
to MGIB-SR (Selected Reserve) benefits shall be suspended on the date a
service member fails to participate satisfactorily as determined by Command
authority. Failure to participate satisfactorily means failure to fulfill
the contractual obligation or service agreement as a service member of the
Selected Reserve. In addition, members are authorized one 12-month break
during the 10-year window of MGIB eligibility. This break is an authorized
non-availability. The member may regain eligibility for MGIB-SR if
reaffiliation with the Selected Reserve occurs within 1 year and member
reenlists or extends for the period of time not actively participating.
The applicant was inactive for almost 5 years. This break in service again
renders him ineligible for MGIB benefits based on the fact he was out for
more than 12 months. AFRC/DPT complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 2 August 2002, a complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and response. 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of 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 offices 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.
Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 30 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Panel Chair
Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 February 2002 w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 17 July 2002.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFRC/DPT, dated 27 March 2002
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 August 2002.
LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01764
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01764 INDEX CODE:135.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His personnel record reflect satisfactory participation in the Air Force Reserve. AFRC/DPM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFRC/DPT recommends the application be denied. _________________________________________________________________ The...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00541 INDEX CODE: 135.03 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was not an unsatisfactory driller in the Air Force Reserve (AFR). On 5 Mar 95, the applicant was terminated from the AFR for unsatisfactory participation. The member's...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01526
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Following an eight-year break in service, he reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve into a different Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) than in his previous enlistment. DPM states the applicant was approved for a reenlistment bonus on 23 July 1995; however, he requested to be reassigned to a non-participating status during the second year of his reenlistment for personal reasons. ...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Available documentation indicated that the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 2 Dec 88 in the grade of airman for a period of six years. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s staff request, the Directorate of Military Law, AFRC/JAJM, reviewed this application and recommended denial. JAJM indicated that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2000-02768A
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 October 2002, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered applicant’s request that the Article 15 imposed on 16 February 1994, and the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 April 1998, be removed from his records and he be sent to a Replacement Training Unit (RTU) to be re-qualified and reinstated in an active status as an Air National Guard (ANG) fighter pilot in...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04010
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPTS recommends denial. To verify and ensure all possible participation was captured and recorded on the AF Form 526, ARPC obtained pay records which correspond exactly to the dates and number of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00509 INDEX CODE: 136.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted an Air Force Reserve retirement based on 20 satisfactory years of service. A memorandum, dated 18 Dec 97, indicated that the applicant, with an expiration term of service (ETS) of 12 Dec 97, had failed to reenlist and that...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00509
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00509 INDEX CODE: 136.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted an Air Force Reserve retirement based on 20 satisfactory years of service. A memorandum, dated 18 Dec 97, indicated that the applicant, with an expiration term of service (ETS) of 12 Dec 97, had failed to reenlist and that...
On 1 August 1994, he was detailed by Captain M--- to return to light duty until 1 January 1995 at which time this restriction was to expire. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Military Personnel Division, Directorate of Personnel, AFRC/DPM, reviewed the application and states that although applicant's request for correction of military records contains no documentation of his placement on "light duty," it is highly likely that his active duty treating physician may have erroneously given him...
Based on there being no indication from the Air Force Reserve that it gave advance notice to the applicant, and based on evidence presented by the applicant, and in the absence of a basis to question the integrity of this individual, we recommend that any doubt be resolved in favor of the applicant and conclude that the reason for his assignment to ARPC should be changed. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 6 August 2001. JOHN L. ROBUCK Panel...